Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shine On! Songs Volume One


 * 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. v/r - TP 16:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Shine On! Songs Volume One

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Prod was contested by an IP twice. Original Prod rationale, "Entirely non-notable album featuring several non-notable artists and some notable artists who may or may not have authorized the inclusion of their songs on this." GB fan 16:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: Prod was contested by sockpuppets. While some of the artists on the album are notable, none of the songs are, and the Israeli IP editors the registered accounts have been inflating the notability subject matter on several articles.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 19:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I hate Sockpuppets. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete As of now, the last two references (out of 4) are from Tyler Foundation, thus WP:SPS and useless in establishing notability. The first one just proves that this thing exists. The second one is not exactly significant, saying nothing much apart from acknowledging the existence of this album. So, delete for failing WP:N.Animusv3Talk to me! Contribs 11:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete There appears only one reference in a reliable secondary source to establish notability; in a small newpaper's website Metropolis (free magazine). IRWolfie- (talk) 11:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Deletion seems to be based upon bias, there are other reliable sources of information out there:
 * "Sheng Ofunato City elementary school "Nimomakezu Rain" recording work songs into English", Tohkai Shinpo Newspaper
 * "Tim Rice schedule archive", Tim Rice official website
 * "Charity CD Delivered to Sakari Elementary School", Iwate Nippo Newspaper --109.186.19.205 (talk) 11:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * — 109.186.19.205 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * — Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 11:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Tim Rice's official website is not a valid reliable source for this article. The Iwate Nippo article was already in use on the page as one of the Tyler Foundation references. But still, none of these show that this album is notable. It shows that it had gotten some press, but it is not on a major label, half of the artists do not pass our notability guidelines, and there are no other references to the various original songs existing outside of the mentions of the Foundation itself online.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 11:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You just mentioned the Tim Rice page which refers to the song he wrote. Secondly, just because you say that a local Japanese newspaper is invalid doesn't mean that that is fact. Something interesting found on the topic is a photo-article such as this.  Verifies at least that notable artist worked on the songs mentioned.109.186.19.205 (talk) 11:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not call any of the local newspaper sources invalid. Tim Rice's official website does not mention the album so it cannot be a source. And I removed a link to the Tyler Foundation website from the article. Why the hell did you show up on the day this debate was going to be closed anyway?— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 11:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I just saw this debate after searching the topic of the album.109.186.19.205 (talk) 12:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The Yahoo Voices article may not be reliable. I have checked their submission guidelines and it borders WP:SPS. They do not have any requirement on notability or verifiability. Animusv3Talk to me! Contribs 12:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What you stated here isn't accurate. I just read Yahoo! Voices guidelines and publications are under editorial review. Plus, all statements must be backup by sources that are not user generated. "Be accurate, and cite your sources. Any information you provide that is neither common knowledge nor clearly established as something you've personally experienced must be drawn from a credible, cited source. In the text, immediately attribute any specific facts and quotes to their source, and link to the specific page that verifies your assertion. At the end of your content, list any authoritative sources that informed your content as a whole, using a format that allows any reader to easily access each source. Acceptable authorities include government agencies, scientific studies, established online or print publications, and articles by credentialed professionals. Do not use Wikipedia articles or other forms of user-generated content as authoritative sources."

In addition, all conflicts of interest must be disclosed. And I just read that content is not published if it is promotional in nature. Read Here Appears to fit both reliable source policies or WP:NEWSBLOG policy.109.186.19.205 (talk) 13:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As much as I would like to extend an assumption of good faith, your timing and your geographic proximity to other individuals with vested interests and a superb knowledge of our internal guidelines suggests otherwise.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 12:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: per nom and lacking in-depth coverage. Toddst1 (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete seems to be promotional over-coverage. articles with the wording "world-famous" in the first paragraph often are.  DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Even if we ignore the fact that this is spam for which the editors adding it are getting paid, the sources in the article and elsewhere do not demonstrate the nontrivial coverage in reliable, notable sources required to establish notability. As a practical matter all edits by these editors should be rolled back, the ip range blocked, and any duck-like socks that pop up again should be similarly purged. DreamGuy (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment DreamGuy, Ip edits shouldn't be rolled back just because you believe them to be coi. An article on Yahoo was released a few days ago, so plenty of people in our great country might be interested in the subject just like I am.  I don't really understand the whole internet Ip location thing but I do know that I'm not in Tel Aviv. Besides, even if every edit actually came from Tel Aviv that shouldn't make every edit from that location invalid because the fact is that its one of the biggest cities in Israel.  Oh and I read these sources and they seem to be good coverage of the subject, but it did need some translating to understand (thanks to facebook translate).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.108.70 (talk) 09:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete based on reasons given by nom, Google searches seem to come up with very little to no references. GrayFullbuster (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The album was released in Japan... refers are more likely to be found in Japanese news... plus, the Iwate Nippo article demonstrates a reliable source with significant coverage and includes links to a notable singer Rie fu on the album and her song. I also noticed that Mark Ballas's song and Tin Cup Gypsy's were connected to this album from the Yahoo ref. The first ref has significant coverage from a Japanese paper that mentions not only the album, but the notable people affiliated with it.  The Metropolis (free magazine) also is ok for a source, but also gives good coverage on the topic and notable people connected to it.  It appears that there are serious bias going on here to me.  This article should either be kept or merged but not deleted.79.180.108.70 (talk) 10:17, 19 December 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.