Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shock Value (Twelve Gauge Valentine album) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. North America1000 09:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Shock Value (Twelve Gauge Valentine album)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

non-notable album by a non-notable band. Two short staff reviews in two RSes. The others, not so much. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The band should be notable, because it was the starting band for Jake Campbell, before he joined Alesana. This album was the only release (besides Exclaimationare), but the band said they reformed under a new name. I just can't find any info on them. Metalworker14 (Yo) 8:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment If it meets WP:GNG, then it can stand. If it doesn't, it can't. Its membership, if they are individually notable, is a sign that it may meet GNG, but not a guarantee. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep: There's two reviews from reliable sources already cited in the article (AbsolutePunk and Jesus Freak Hideout). Both reviews consist of four paragraphs, which is not what I would exactly call short, and should be good to establish notability for the article. Kokoro20 (talk) 13:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:NALBUMS. I don't think the reviews count as significant coverage as required. I find it strange that there is an article on the album but not on the band - it appears the band article was deleted.  —Мандичка YO 😜 05:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep – passes WP:NALBUMS. It has received significant coverage from reliable sources, albeit in Christian music publications, so it should be kept. Every article does not have to achieve massive coverage in order for it to achieve notability.The Cross Bearer (talk) 03:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I guess the publications AbsolutePunk, Jesus Freak Hideout, Cross Rhythms, and Indie Vision Music, by having articles on Wikipedia, lends no credence that this album and band have achieved coverage. "Significant coverage" is in the eye of the beholder.The Cross Bearer (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We have four sources. Fifteen paragraphs in all (and that includes some brief sentences) for a total of 1,655 words. I would call that not meeting significant coverage in multiple sources, although they are RSes. While it is now up to four sources from the two when nominated, it still fails. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * How do they not? It's not like the reviews consist of only a few sentences. Three of those reviews consist of at least four paragraphs, which sounds like significant coverage to me. In this case, keeping it rather deleting it seems to be the most logical choice. Kokoro20 (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * How do they? We're expecting material that goes onto pages. Reviews are the worst because they're intended to be brief. I have read books that analyze collections of works by some artists with chapters devoted to individual albums. I have seen scholarly papers written on songs or larger compositions. Only four fringe publications offering so few words is laughable. The four-minute song and five-minute read has rotted your brain for what a significant source is.


 * I think you're setting standards way too high here. Most albums don't even get whole chapters in books written about them. For this reason, album reviews are often seen as the best way to establish notability for an album. Kokoro20 (talk) 08:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If this were a person, we would say that significant coverage has not been met. Four articles that only encompass 15 paragraphs and 83 "sentences". It would not pass. The same should apply to albums. Look at other albums that are nominated. Are four reviews enough for them? I am reflecting the project's expectations. The fact is, if this article stands, then a band article can be claimed to be required as well and there clearly isn't enough content for a band article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know about that. I've seen many albums survive AFD with just two or three reviews. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen an album with three or more reviews (at least ones that was pointed by someone in an AFD) not get kept at one. Also, WP:NALBUMS clearly points out that a band being notable is not required for one of their albums to be notable. Kokoro20 (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't speak to the ones you've seen, but I think it depends on the sources of the reviews. I don't see Indie Vision Music, the one with the longest review, as a reliable source. It's page has been tagged for notability for two years. I just proposed AfD for that on virtue of the only article I found about it was one saying the site needed donations to stay open. —Мандичка YO 😜 12:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * All four of the review sources brought up here are considered reliable (including Indie Vision Music), per WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES and WP:CM/S. Kokoro20 (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Indie Vision Music doesn't seem to be notable per WP standards —Мандичка YO 😜 01:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if it's not notable, it doesn't mean it's unreliable. Kokoro20 (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2015 (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.