Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personal (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. Consensus is currently to keep, although sourcing can be improved (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Personal (album)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I didn't find coverage of this album that would satisfy WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG. Till 08:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep made billboard r&b #29, billboard hot 200, spawned three hits, on MJ's label, produced by teddy riley - let's presume this has been written about. 86.44.24.94 (talk) 04:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Let's presume this has been written about" — we don't presume here on Wikipedia. Please read WP:N. Till 06:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes we do. I just did. 86.44.24.94 (talk) 12:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you even bother to read what I just linked you? "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." Till 09:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * yes, & i presume such sources can be found. from WP:N: A topic is ... presumed notable if it meets [ WP:MUSIC ] . a specific criteria from wp:music - A[n] ... ensemble ... may be notable if it ... has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. 86.44.24.94 (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You are reading it wrong. It doesn't say that we presume a topic has sources if it meets a SNG, it says a topic is presumed (meaning assumed) to be notable if it meets the SNG. Till 02:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not reading it wrong at all. 86.44.24.94 (talk) 04:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's typically hard to find sources on albums that were released such a while ago. A quick search came up with an AllMusic review, which also gives information about it's release date, duration, credits, etc. The album has also charted, which shows some sort of notability. Lastly, it was also released by the record label of Michael Jackson. Article is in bad shape, but could be improved. If it can't be improved enough, a simple redirect to the article's page would do.  Statυs ( talk ) 09:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd say I expanded the article quite a bit.  Statυs  ( talk ) 13:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed you have. & let's note the allmusic review and billboard entries constitute multiple WP:RS. 86.44.24.94 (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The Billboard entries don't count for anything. Listings are not coverage. And the Allmusic review barely counts, considering how it really isn't significant coverage as is required by the notability standards. Silver  seren C 08:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The official record of placing on a national chart is of course significant coverage. 86.44.24.94 (talk) 04:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I logged on today to check if this discussion had any new comments to it. I was, quite frankly, shocked to see it closed by Status' good friend with the rationale "The article meets both GNG and NALBUMS". This was completely out of line. Firstly, if you are going to opine to this discussion then do not close it. I hope that you should know that it's against policy to share your opinion on this article's notability and also close the discussion. Secondly, my concerns are entirely in good faith because I was unable to find WP:SIGCOV. The better option would be to let the Afd run its course. I will be notifying administration of this. Till 22:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * keep enough unrelated sources available to prove notability. The Banner talk 01:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Unrelated sources" is not enough. They must be secondary, reliable sources with significant coverage. Till 01:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure the user meant to say reliable sources.  Statυs ( talk ) 02:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Unrelated and 'reliable' are two completely different terms. And how would you know unless you're a mind-reader. Till 03:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, he was right. I ment to say unrelated and reliable sources. Sorry, mate, I really think we should keep this article (although I had never heard of the band before) The Banner talk 08:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC) Or are you part of the UDFW: The United Deletionist Front of Wikipedia?
 * Show me the sources, because as far as I can tell, they're not there. You do know what a reliable source is, correct? And what significant coverage is? Silver  seren C 08:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article has been bloated with lots of irrelevant information to make it look larger than necessary. Till 01:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed the WP:CHARTTRAJ violation. Till 01:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ...And you keep going on about things. Jut an FYI, this is actually the first time I've ever written a commercial performance section from scratch, so I didn't know that you weren't supposed to do a play by play. Assume good faith next time.  Statυs ( talk ) 02:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going on about things I'm just saying that I removed some information. You're supposed to know Wikipedia's policies before making edits. Till 02:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Except only 2 of them are anything close to reliable, secondary coverage. So how does this meet notability standards in the slightest? Silver  seren C 08:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Where are the sources? I'm looking through the reference list here and i'm seeing practically nothing. All of the Billboard stuff is just listings, so doesn't count toward notability at all. And practically all of the Allmusic sources are just song listings. The only barely useful one is the one on the album, where it has an extremely short review. Other than that, the only actual good source is this and that's it. This is not even close to meet WP:N. If this is all we got and there's nothing else that can be found, then this shouldn't be a separate article. Silver  seren C 08:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with you. Which is why it's at Afd in the first place. The article looks like it meets the requirements, but that's because it's been bloated with information that doesn't really count towards notability. Till 08:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a rather nice cover-up job, actually. The bloating with Billboard listings was a good touch. I almost thought they were reviews (and thus reliable sources) for a moment. But, alas, no. Silver  seren C 08:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Bloating", "cover-up job" Are you serious? A brief history of it's charting process IS relevant to an album article, which this is, you know? There are several, several, third-party, reliable sources in the article. I haven't even look into finding much sources, just a few things I found with ease. I don't have a much particular interest in the subject, as I'd only just heard of them now and only listened to them when I was doing the sample to upload to the article. I guess you should really start assuming good faith to a user who is just trying to save an article for deletion. I thought the amount of information in the article was enough for a keep (which it is), but if you'll be happy with me expanding the article like it was some Grammy-Award winning album with seven hit singles, I'll do so.  Statυs  ( talk ) 17:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would actually appreciate more sources, yes. This is a nice source that I didn't notice. However, that and the Vibe one only add up to two. This doesn't add much at all, because it is 3 sentences or so that is just mentioning how it charted, that's all. It's not much better than the charts themselves. This barely adds anything, unless you think a two sentence review is significant coverage. This is a single sentence. It is pretty much useless for anything regarding notability. That means there's only 2 actually good sources. We need more than that to meet notability standards. Silver  seren C 19:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't accept that count, but regardless, please look up "multiple". 86.44.24.94 (talk) 04:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The amount of information in the article is not germane to the notability of the article and has no impact on a keep result. You can expand the article all you want, but that's not going to affect its coverage by third-party, reliable sources. Till 23:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. First, my assessment of the article's 22 references (as of this post):
 * -12 are Billboard, 10 of which are chart listings, and another has only a passing mention. As an aside, the first paragraph of the "Reception" section reads too much like a play-by-play for my tastes. Also, most of the "key" chart positions cited from Billboard magazine can be substituted with a single online source.
 * - 5 are Allmusic, 3 of which are directory/album listings, and another is a single-sentence mention. There's also a brief album review.
 * - 2 are links to MTV's video database.
 * - 1 is The Daily Cougar, a student newspaper.
 * - 1 is a Jacksons Number Ones book which has only a passing mention of the album.
 * With that in mind, and the need for "significant" (that is, in depth) coverage in order to satisfy WP:NALBUMS, the concerns regarding the quality (not the quantity) of sources are legitimate. The best of the dozen Billboard sources and the Vibe review are helpful, and additional album reviews exist in newspapers such as the Chicago Sun-Times, Dayton Daily News, and Chattanooga Times Free Press (180-250 words each). I have incorporated these into the article. That's good enough, in my view, for this album to meet WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS.  Gongshow  Talk 05:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding in those reviews! I hadn't come across them! As for the "play by play", it was much longer before, and I just keep the most important ones there. Such as when it debuted, when it exited, and maybe a few other notable positions.  Statυs ( talk ) 05:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed the section as currently written is improved and shorter than the original version. Whether it possibly needs more tweaking is an editing choice and not too relevant in terms of establishing the album's notability; I decided to weigh in just because it came to mind and was mentioned earlier in the discussion. What's more important, for the purposes of this AfD, is identifying significant coverage for the album in multiple independent reliable sources, and I think that's been achieved.  Gongshow  Talk 06:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: Based on charting on multiple charts and sufficient sourcing.--Milowent • hasspoken  13:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: It should be noted that two users have attempted closing this AfD, and the nominator reverted both of them. Without notifying them as well. <font face="Arial" size="2em"> Statυs ( talk ) 14:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is borderline ridiculous by now. I will ask an admin to close this discussion. — <font color="#333333">ΛΧΣ <font color="#336699">21™ 15:00, 15 November 2012 (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.