Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progfest '94 (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 delete. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Progfest '94 (album)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NALBUM. The one genuine RS in the article is a primary source interview with the festival's promoter, so not independent, and more importantly, nothing to do with the album itself. And although Prog Archives is a long-running website, it's a community blog and not an RS, with the review coming from a contributor. Richard3120 (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - The is an album article but it tries to cover the festival as well, which is already a mistake. (Though the festival was from pre-Internet times, I did manage to find this article from the period:, and a few Google Books results in which it appears briefly in various lists of 90's events.) Since we are discussing an apparent album article here, we must use WP:NALBUM and the album has even less media coverage that the event that it came from, only being found at various list sites like ProgArchives, and the usual retail/streaming sites. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 19:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * the LA Times article is already included in the external links of the article, and is the primary source interview with the festival director that I mentioned in the nomination. Richard3120 (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete - The article mentions the festival with little detail. It does not try to cover it.  There are not many online reviews of this album as it came out in 1995. Several of the bands that performed at this particular event in 1994 are still active and it is part of their discographies.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chutch15 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Having few online reviews is not a problem if there are old magazine/newspaper reviews. If any of those exist they should be tracked down and named here. Also, this album can be listed in the bands' discographies as items in their histories, but that is not a reason for giving the album its own article. See WP:NALBUM and WP:RS. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 14:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have updated the article with more sources and reviews and tailored the description to be more focussed on the album release and not the festival itself. Print reviews of the 25-year old niche (but important) music festival are tough to find. I'm not sure any of the progressive rock magazines existed at that time (Expose', Progression, etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chutch15 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the sources you add to your articles about Echolyn aren't reliable ones – Sonic Perspectives, Prog Archives and Dutch Progressive Rock Page may be long-established websites for fans of progressive rock music, but none of them pass Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources, they are all blogs or community forums. I do sympathise with the difficulty in obtaining print media from before the internet age – it's the reason many album articles from the 80s and 90s are in poor shape compared with ones from the last few years, where there is a wealth of information online. Richard3120 (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Re-listed to allow time to locate possible or likely sources, but otherwise consensus is delete.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 18:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per Chutch15. IMO, the annual event itself is more notable than the compilation album. Sources about the compilation album are scarce, but the sources in the article are indeed reliable. I found a source, which has a segment which briefly talks about the album. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 07:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's the personal blog of a user hosted on the University of Sussex's website, that's not an RS in any shape or form. Richard3120 (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete: "The sources in the article are reliable" -- seriously?? The first one is a primary source.  The second is a track listing, and I am curious upon what basis "sobaworld.co.kr" meets WP:RS. The third is six sentences long (and I am curious upon what basis "expose.org" meets WP:RS).  The fourth does not mention the subject at all.  Neither does the Los Angeles Times piece listed as an external link in the article. Claiming that these sources provide the significant coverage to the subject that the GNG requires is, at best, fishing.  Fails the GNG and WP:ALBUM. And that being said, there's long been a notion held by some that if there's some excuse for there not to be reliable sources on a subject (pre-Internet age, say), the provisions of WP:V and the GNG are waived.  This curious notion is not supported by any Wikipedia policy or guideline.   Ravenswing      01:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I am yet to see coverage from reliable source independent of the subject. Orientls (talk) 08:29, 16 August 2020 (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.