Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayday (Hugh Cornwell album)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. Some suggestions to merge a few of these (which lack independent sourcing) with the artist seem to be reasonable, but I am leaving that matter up to editorial discretion. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Mayday (Hugh Cornwell album)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

fails WP:ALBUMS and WP:GNG. no evidence of charting or significant non trivial coverage. also nominating by same artist: those wanting to keep must demonstrate meeting WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG, not simply saying WP:ITSUSEFUL to keep discographies. LibStar (talk) 02:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wolf (Hugh Cornwell album), no real coverage
 * Solo_(Hugh_Cornwell_album),
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  — Logan Talk Contributions 05:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge all to a Hugh Cornwell discography article - detail on Cornwell's releases belongs in this encyclopedia even if we can't find sources to justify individual articles via Google, and the verifiable details such as tracklistings, labels can be included in the discography.--Michig (talk) 06:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see absolutely no point in creating a discography article for his albums and just tracklistings. Grouping a whole lot of non notable albums into one article does not add up to one notable discography article. LibStar (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * He is a notable artist and information on his releases is clearly encyclopedic. What exactly is a 'notable discography article'? - it's subjects that are notable, not articles, and Cornwell's body of work is certainly notable. Cornwell is of sufficient stature in British music that all of his albums will have received reviews from the music press - unfortunately most of these are not available online. This does not make the albums 'non-notable', it simply means that we don't have sources readily available on which to base articles. That's why in cases such as this, articles may not be justified but verifiable encyclopedic information about the albums should be included either in the artist article or in a separate discography article.--Michig (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Cornwell's body of work is certainly notable", no. body of work must meet WP:NALBUMS. all his own article needs to list is albums. we don't need to create a directory of track listings as per WP:NOTDIR. LibStar (talk) 02:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What? NALBUMS is purely for albums. Notable artists' bodies of work are clearly of encyclopedic interest. Details of albums have nothing to do with NOTDIR.--Michig (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)




 * Keep All, well-known artist, sourcing issues shouldn't be fixed by deletion. Also suspicious that these have all been lumped together - the headline item is a self-released live album, whereas Wolf is a major release on Virgin featuring several famous musicians. Not the same thing. Bienfuxia (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep All. Mayday gets a four-star review at AllMusic; Wolf almost certainly had extensive coverage in the UK music press at the time (1988, when he was still in The Stranglers) that hasn't made it online; even if Solo isn't notable in its own right, Cornwell certainly is, and it should be kept for the same reasons that are outlined elsewhere. (In short, it comes down to the recommendation in WP:OSE: "In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items.") BlueThird (talk) 06:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. There's also an AfD for Wired. BlueThird (talk) 07:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Added significant extra information for Wolf, including references to Trouser Press (for the album) and the Los Angeles Times (for the lead single and accompanying video). BlueThird (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep the article on Wolf is now suitably referenced using third party sources. The album was released in both the UK and the US, where a single from the album charted in the US alternative rock charts. The album is clearly notable from a notable artist. Dan arndt (talk) 04:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Wolf certainly has enough sources. Mayday appears to as well given the Allmusic article and the independent article already referenced in the article.  Not sure about Solo, although if no independent sources exist I would follow WP:NALBUMS: "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article". Rlendog (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.