Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Mountains in Manhattan


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

No Mountains in Manhattan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Sourced to press releases, Created by now blocked user, fails WP:NMUSIC. Dysklyver 22:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 00:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 00:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 00:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article was created by the sock of a blocked user, so on that grounds a G5 speedy deletion is warranted. However, the remainder of the nomination is totally incorrect; this, this and this are definitely not press releases but are exactly the kind of reviews needed to meet WP:NMUSIC. Loud and Quiet is a British music magazine, so it's not as if the reviews are just local things, and Pitchfork (website) is rather important as well. And it's not as if all sources were exhausted in the article, there is e.g. this interview in Spin as well. Clearly a notable album, and a rather unsatisfying deletion nomination. Fram (talk) 07:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have struck part of the deletion rationale now Fram has pointed out there are some non-press-release sources available. Dysklyver  16:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Which where in the article at the time you nominated it, and which show that it meets NMusic, which you haven't struck. Why did you claim that the sources in the article were press releases? And why didn't you search for other sources, as is required? Please simply withdraw this nomination. Fram (talk) 20:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It is very simple, without inline references I had to check the refs manually. It was very clear to me after a google search that nothing notable was presenting itself.
 * Pitchfork is an online only review site known for dubious practice in reviewing specific music to improve its page views rather than quality. you may rate them but I don't, I consider them DM.
 * The concordia article is hardly difficult to publish, I have published in similar student newspapers myself, I would say its reliable enough, but it doesn't cover NMusic on its own.
 * Brooklyn Vegan is a blog owned by a medium sized Ad firm. enough said.
 * The Loud and Quiet article is based on this interview I don't need to explain how that works.
 * Mass Appeal has covered the album, but mass appeal seems to have a disproportionate amount of coverage on this artist related to an event they contracted him for.
 * In short I don't see how this album is notable, obviously the artist is notable, but that isn't the issue. Dysklyver  22:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Your opinion of Pitchfork has little to do with notability, only with reliability. Your reasoning to dismiss Loud and Quiet is even weirder. Because they not only review the album, but also have a long interview with the artist, the review is somehow dismissable and the album less notable instead of more so? "without inline references I had to check the refs manually." As opposed to with inline references, when you could have checked them automatically? Doesn't make sense. And you ignore the Spin interview I mentioned, which you could easily have found looking for indications of notability, as you are required to do before nominating an article for deletion for lack of notability, and which you certainly should take into consideration after it has been presented in this AfD. Basically, your opinion is noted but rejected as baseless. Oh, and why did you claim that these were all "press releases" when you had actually manually checked these? Fram (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * To answer your query. "Sourced mainly from mateial based on press releases" would have been a more accurate description of my opioin.
 * Interviews don't count when establishing notability (IMO), in my mind this extends to reviews done contractually as an element of the interview. I am a proponent of some of the more critical views in Interviews. This applies to the Spin interview and the Loud and Quiet sources.
 * My opinion on using promotional sources to support an article which exists for promotional reasons is evident I suppose. I don't trust Pitchfork, but I am hardly going to bother with an RfC to get it banned like the Daily Mail.
 * I am not sure what doesn’t make sense about checking references automatically, I mean I still have to do some work, but it makes things a lot easier.
 * I still haven’t seen any indication of notability, and despite your comments that I should withdraw the nomination, and that I am required to find better sources (which I did look for), I still think it ought to be merged into the rappers main article. Dysklyver  12:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A merge is not a reason to have an AfD. If you want a merge, withdraw the AfD and propose a merge of the article. Your reasoning about interviews and reviews is bizarre; Spin interviews him because they think he is notable, why would they need then to be forced into posting a review as well? And if getting interviewed because you release a new album doesn't make that album notable, then what does? People don't get notable because they get interviewed about something else (e.g. a witness interview of some disaster makes the disaster notable, usually not the witness; an interview with a company spokesman about some scandal adds to the notability of the company and perhaps the scandal, but not the spokesman); but when an artist gets interviewed about his own work, it makes both the artist and the work notable. It sounds to me as if you are by now clutching at straws to defend an indefensible AfD (one of by now many you have started). No idea why you believe that the Pitchfork, Loud and Quiet, and Spin sources would be "mainly based on press releases" either, this seems rather dismissive of the work of the journalists and critics, and basically a bunch of unsupported OR and POV. Fram (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * A merge is a valid outcome of an AfD, and given the broken state of the MfD system it should be obvious why I prefer this route (also my merge tags are perpetually disrupted and edit warred over, this can't happen to an AfD because there are actual rules on closing which require discussion).
 * You probably haven't worked in the music industry, so I will give some background (and my opinion). An album is notable if it has charted and an unconnected and unsolicited reviewer reviews the work on the strength of the work having become relevant through having charted, or a major mainstream publication such as the BBC or NYT picks up the work and publishes a viewpoint independently. An album is not notable if it has been featured in specialist music publications because it has been released by XYZ Records and the publication wants an interview in case it charts later.
 * The way it normally works is thus: XYZ records release a range of albums over a year, they agree with certain publications to arrange interviews in exchange for publicity, the publications benefit from this arrangement by XYZ records placing Ad orders on their website, and from the traffic to the interview if the album or artist becomes the 'next big thing'. If the artist fails, the interview is hidden from view, effectively buried, meanwhile popular interviews are promoted to improve pageview traffic. This is legal, acceptable and perfectly normal.
 * So basically until a mainstream publisher publishes on the work, or the album actually charts, its not notable - even with all this industry churning.
 * I disagree with your interpretation of the way interviews work, nor is this my just my own personal opinion either. An interview with a specialist publication is a primary source (unless the interviewer is a noted journalist, which is not the case here), a review commissioned for the purpose of gaining an interview is not independent.
 * The music industry is not some fair system of integrity, it is the most 'appealing' promotional machine second only to hollywood. I relax my view a bit on major publications like the Rolling Stone, but otherwise, not happening.
 * I have a different view on reviews on unsigned artists, without industry backing, these unsigned artists are generally notable if reviewed, even in the same way by the same publication, part of the business model of the music industry is to pick up a few unsigned artists to maintain diversity, therefore relevance. Dysklyver  13:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I really don't care where you claim to have worked or know more about. We have notability rules, and these are valid, not your own personal rules. Pitchfork, Spin and Louyd and Quiet are more than sufficient to meet NMUSIC, no matter if you agree with that guideline or not. AfD is not the place to argue about the politics of this or that industry, that discussion should happen at the talk page of the guideline. A long article like this is only more evidence that this is clearly a notable new album according to enwiki rules. Fram (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - the album has received coverage at Pitchfork, The Fader, Exclaim!, and XXL, all of which are considered reliable sources at our Albums WikiProject. Additional coverage exists at Village Voice and BrooklynVegan. With these in mind, the album meets WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM.  gongshow  talk  08:47, 17 October 2017 (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.