Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recreation Day


 * 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 no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Recreation Day

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NALBUM. The coverage that I found of this album appears to mostly consist of passing mentions or not in-depth about the album itself, thus not satisfying the "multiple, non-trivial" part of "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it." that is required by WP:GNG (quoted wording from NALBUM criterion #1) and is a fundamental building block of notability policy. There has been no evidence that it charted to pass #2 either, with sverigetopplistan returning no results The SandDoctor  Talk 04:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC); expanded 17:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  The SandDoctor  Talk 04:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  The SandDoctor  Talk 04:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: Stop proposing random deletions. Relevant album by a relevent band, might as well just delete every other album by them then Heiko Gerber (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Heiko. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Rationale expanded to clarify the nomination. There does not appear to be enough coverage of the album to warrant a separate Wikipedia article. Given that the main band page has been kept, would a redirect be reasonable? -- The SandDoctor  Talk 17:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge all albums to Evergrey discography. The track listings can be condensed into collapsed templates there. BD2412  T 19:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per Heiko Gerber. I found some reliable sources which talk about the album:, , , , and . With these, the album is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM.  ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Source by source review:
 * seaoftranquility appears to be a forum post(?) in a source of questionable notability that is barely 3 paragraphs long is non-RS per WP:ALBUMAVOID
 * blabbermouth is a reliable source, but appears to be reviewing less than half the album
 * metal-archives is an unreliable source, as explicitly listed at WikiProject Metal
 * sputnikmusic appears user generated, which does nothing for notability is not RS per WP:MUSICRS as it is not a clearly marked staff or emeritus review.
 * metal-rules does not exactly strike me as a professional review site with editorial oversight based on the quality of the review
 * AllMusic is a good review
 * Overall, this album appears to run into problems with WP:NOTINHERETED, WP:NRV, and a general lack of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable publications. The SandDoctor  Talk 04:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sea of Tranquility is not a reliable source, it is listed at "unreliable sources" on WP:ALBUMAVOID. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I have amended above (with this same edit) to reflect that new info. -- The SandDoctor Talk 04:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 15:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it. " -- Aside from the ones mentioned here are more: metal storm (considered reliable per WP:MUSICRS), sputnikmusic.com (considered reliable per WP:MUSICRS), rockhard.de, powermetal.de -- Heiko Gerber (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is important to note that albums do not inherit notability from their artists (see "Albums" subsection of WP:NALBUMS), regardless of how notable or well covered the artist is (correlation does not imply causation is probably relevant). Albums and singles etc must demonstrate independent notability based on the coverage present in reliable sources. While it is true that metal storm is considered a reliable source by WP:MUSICRS, the important caveat that was missed and is listed there is:
 * Must be 2009 or later
 * Must be a staff or emeritus review
 * in order to be considered a reliable source. The one that you linked fails to meet both qualifications, being from 2004 and clearly marked as a guest review; the latter of which is WP:USERG (also per MUSICRS). When it comes to sputnik, the source is a user review (not tagged as staff), which falls under the WP:USERG caveat which is listed at WP:MUSICRS. Rock Hard (magazine) is identified by WP:MUSICRS as being reliable, but is a fairly short review and one is not enough. Power metal is not listed in WP:A/S and I am not sure on, but does not have an article and my concern is WP:SPS. -- The SandDoctor Talk 18:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We have AllMusic, Blabbermouth, and Rock Music now who meet all necessary criteria. Enough to keep the article imo Heiko Gerber (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge into Evergrey discography - aside from the two extremely unconvincing Keep !votes, this appears to fail GNG. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   15:18, 30 October 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.