Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simplicity Two Thousand


 * 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. With established editors not coming to a consensus about the depth of sourcing, it does not appear that a consensus will form here. Star  Mississippi  02:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Simplicity Two Thousand

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The artist's article, Afterlife (musician), was deleted years ago for not being notable. One AllMusic review doesn't appear to be enough to sustain this article for an album made by a non-notable artist. It doesn't appear to have charted or have any other coverage easily found through a Google search. As there is no target to redirect it to, nominating for deletion.  Ss  112   10:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2023 February 26.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 11:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)


 * In addition to the AllMusic page, I found this writeup from Mojo and this blurb. It also appears in this ranking from Muzik which isn't much but might be worth including if this gets kept. Worth noting that I only found some of those results by searching "Simplicity 2000" rather than the title we have. QuietHere (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: This is relisted after a speedy deletion that failed to obtain consensus support at Deletion review/Log/2023 March 4. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   13:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - The book page located by QuietHere (above) could help, but that is one review when we hope to see multiple reviews. Otherwise little useful can be found about the album. Since the musician's article did not survive on WP, neither should this album article. Could also be speedy deleted per WP:A9. (But note that the musician got deleted via an expired PROD, rather than a full debate.) ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 00:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Having a single source is the same as having original research. See also my assessment at Articles for deletion/Speck of Gold. Bearian (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Tagging it for Speedy Deletion as an unremarkable album with no artist's page. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Why? I Ask don't tag AfD-s in progress for speedy deletion. –Vipz (talk) 08:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's commonly done. This isn't the first time it's happened nor is it the last. The only reason it didn't stay is because another user thought that there was a credible claim of significance. I personally thought it should be deleted under A9 at the time and an admin did too. Ironically, if I hadn't nominated it for speedy deletion, and let the nomination run its course, it would have completely been deleted without any recourse of a potential WP:Heymann. Why? I Ask (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete No album reviews found, lots of tracks named "Simplicity", nothing by this person. Oaktree b (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm exploring the potential of WP:HEYing this so bear with me for a few more minutes (days). —Alalch E. 23:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Wanna add some more prose? There are three reviews: AllMusic, the Mojo book, and the NZ The Press mag (which I added). —Alalch E. 22:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Done so. And now that I've had a look at what we've collected, I think this could reasonably squeeze through as a weak keep. QuietHere (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Nice! BTW, is there any chance for this not to be an orphan? :) —Alalch E. 02:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of results in here, most of which I'm sure are totally unrelated but some may be useful. QuietHere (talk) 02:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Deorphaned by QuietHere.—Alalch E. 15:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Requesting input on WP:HEY. (not pinging Vipz as he hasn't commented on the merits, only on the process): The article has changed a lot since the nomination. References were found, prose was added, and it was deorphaned. I think we have a serious case to consider here, so please review the article as it is now, and leave a comment about possibly changing your !vote. Thanks—Alalch E. 14:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We have an AfD with a only a single sort-of "weak keep" pseudo-vote, and a deletion review debate that couldn't even reach a consensus on when to close the AfD in light of a conflicting speedy delete request. I can hardly imagine a weaker justification for putting effort into developing an article. But you managed to dig up a few one-paragraph reviews from sources that seem to know nothing about the musician who made the album. This whole saga is a triumph of procedure worship, but maybe someone will read the article once a year. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 14:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Just as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, non-notability is also not inherited. Per WP:NALBUM: An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article. Conversely, an album does not need to be by a notable artist or ensemble to merit a standalone article if it meets the general notability guideline. (emphasis mine). —Alalch E. 15:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I never have to look at the article again so none of this bothers me. But since we're in a policy parade here, allow me to re-emphasize my own link above at "procedure worship". Or in the official and less snarky terms, Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without considering their principles... Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures. This saga has resulted in an album being deemed notable because it narrowly evades rules on non-notability, and because the community couldn't figure out when to close a deletion discussion. Or in other words, this album is just barely by the thinnest possible sliver and closest possible shave not non-notable. Does being barely not non-notable make it notable? Maybe. I would rather see such effort put into an article on the musician. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 13:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Independently from your comment, I actually requested refund for the musician and got it (it's in the redirect's history). We're clearly on the same side here. This AfD leans into absurdist humor, but at the end of it, we might as well console ourselves with a cute little article. If you remember my !vote in the DRV I would have been 200% happy with this having been deleted at the time, but I became interested in the topic a little bit after the fact, mainly because of the borderlineness of this even being an album in the first place (it both is and isn't). edit: I mean... it is. —Alalch E. 15:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * On a more serious note, notability is not a question of process, it's a question of content. —Alalch E. 15:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have not changed my vote from far above, and will stick with the "significant" requirement at WP:SIGCOV. The reviews are short and vague, and even an extremely forgiving assessment finds that they just barely scratch the surface of what we need here. Again, I don't have to look at the article ever again. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 14:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting since the article was improved while the AfD was ongoing Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 15:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Additional time that was allowed by the relist which followed the overturning of the A9 speedy deletion at Deletion review, and increased interest in this article (and its AfD), which followed from the DRV, enabled editors to dig deeper, do a proper WP:BEFORE, and actually find references that establish this topic's notability per WP:NALBUM. Encyclopedic prose was added to the article based on this. While the preceding delete !votes are fine as a reflection of the state of the article at the time of nomination (and after doing only a superficial BEFORE, at best), the arguments such as ... one review ..., ... single source ..., No album reviews found ... etc. are obviously superseded. —Alalch E. 16:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * It's still a !delete from me, I'm not seeing substantial coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete : Before I give my rationale, I want to give a shout out and credit to Alalch E. above who has done an absolutely incredible herculean effort to improve the article to meet WP:NMUSIC's first criterion. Unfortunately, I don't think that it satisfies the criterion right now, but it's closer than some of the other delete !voters seem to be reckoning with. The Allmusic review would qualify in my opinion as an edge case of a "non-trivial published work", if just. The Mojo Collection article is mostly quotes from Steve Miller and doesn't feel like it qualifies as non-trivial to me because of the paucity of coverage here . The mini guide is plainly trivial, and the last source is an interview on a non-notable blog . I also searched for sources on newspapers.com but didn't find anything in either the UK or US that I could add to this. It's definitely an edge case now, but I'm inclined to lean towards the delete side of that edge currently.  Nomader  ( talk ) 16:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Please take look at the third actual review in the NZ daily The Press, which is accessible through the Wikipedia Library. That review and the two others (Allmusic and Mojo; the latter indeed being weaker but it's still a book, and its authors chose this album, apparently, for being seen as a significant release, representative of a certain style of that period's contemporary music, however dated and ephemeral that may seem now) are what I deem notability to rest on, certainly not the blog.—Alalch E. 16:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping here! Completely missed this reference when I was looking over the page. It's about the same length as the Allmusic one and it's something that I'd likely consider an edge case as well as a "non-trivial" work, but based on this and the other sources, I'm now on the other edge of the fence and think it's a Weak Keep. But really well done digging through to find all of this coverage. Nomader  ( talk ) 16:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Keep after the excellent sourcing discussion above, I am persuaded there is sufficient sourcing to satisfy NALBUMS.Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2023 (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.