Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slow Hole to China: Rare and Unreleased


 * 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. We are overtime, and I do not see how this discussion can be closed differently from no consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Slow Hole to China: Rare and Unreleased

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable album. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 19:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 19:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 *  Ete ethan  (talk)  20:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I find the attitude by the 'person' deleting my work to be reprehensible and vandalism at that. The fact that someone else has joined in to attack my very blatant words expressed about my unhappiness with the a for mentioned person's vandalism, is indicative of a USA biased attitude on this site. You need to change that attitude quickly. Notable in the USA means nothing. If I put up work solely based out of Australia, like the Strange Cousins at the Prince article for deletion also, then you say thank you, not mess with it.Nuro Dragonfly (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not up to you to "allow" Afds of articles you may have created or worked on. Please don't keep this WP:Battleground approach up or you will very likely find yourself blocked. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, I know it can be frustrating. We've all been there. I've suggested to JJMC89 that he refrain from any further deletion nominations of this editor's work, at least for now, as Nuro Dragonfly is clearly feeling hounded. thanks to both of you, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So Shawn, you're saying JJMC89 should reward Nuro's battleground approach and personal attacks? duffbeerforme (talk) 10:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * True, too. JJMC89 has been very patient in a heated situation and I commend him. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Looks to be sourced, and meets the standards of WP:MUSIC. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't work a lot in this area. What criteria in WP:NMUSIC would it meet? I cannot find much coverage, even without the subtitle "Rare and Unreleased." Even the Allmusic "review" isn't actually a review. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I did find another site, though I don't know if it counts a source here: RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How so? There is no actual review on AllMusic, MySpace is social media, the third source does not mention the article subject, and the last one is a track listing and user reviews. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 21:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that Blistering review, too. I'd never heard of it and their home page says they've shut down but it's a bylined independent review in a bona fide online music mag. That's a WP:Reliable source, for sure. So that's one. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A reminder to others to search without that subtitle, "Rare and Unreleased" as the article spans both subtitled versions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I looked at the cite's that were added by me and I concluded that, for what ever reason, they went 'nowhere' and am quite perplexed as to how I used them as a link in the first place, but the others are a valid source imo...im willing to find better source material.Nuro Dragonfly (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Unless someone can turn up more reliable source reviews and/or substantial coverage, or this meets some additional criterion of WP:NMUSIC, I just don't see how it meets our notability requirements at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am in the process of finding better source material.Nuro Dragonfly (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Of which I have done some more work on.Nuro Dragonfly (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 13:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment None of the changes to the article since I nominated it for deletion establish its notability. There is only one reliable source (Blistering). —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 23:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Further Comment - I will state as far as I'm concerned the last four ref are all good enough to establish notability here on the wiki. The article has been up for many years without any concerns of 'Editors' with various levels of 'Authority'. It only came to light because someone interfered with my editing in a manor I reacted to badly. Since then 'certain' 'editors' have 'decided' to 'scrutinise' my work here. I consider that 'trolling' and 'harassment' to be blunt after a certain point. My attitude has well and truly been neutral since said issues were brought to light by 'admin' level 'editors' and consensus ensued. So once again I do not see any problem with any of the cite's that I have added to the original single one by the original author, which was the ref to the bands website. I kinda consider that to be an improvement from me to the articles relevance to the bands catalog of albums. Not being aggressive, just being honest. I've also read various WP articles on said notability source material and have since removed any such ones from cite's such as Discogs etc used by authors on articles I've been attending to, form other bands pages as well, as I can see the reason behind such a decision.  Nuro   msg me  01:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The sources as of now are
 * AllMusic: This is a database entry, so it does not contribute to notability.
 * pro-rock.com: This is by the band, so it is not indepedent. It also doesn't mention the album.
 * weathermakermusic.com: This is a record label's website, owned by Clutch, so it is not independent. It also doesn't mention the album.
 * Blistering: This is a reliable source and contributes to notability.
 * Sputnikmusic.com: This does not have significant coverage of the album.
 * kingcrimsonprog.wordpress.com: This is a blog, thus not a reliable source.
 * ninehertz: This is a collaborative forum of reviews, articles and a place to discuss music (user generated content), thus not a reliable source.
 * Since the album has not 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 itWP:NALBUMS and obviously doesn't meet any of the other criteria of WP:NALBUMS, it is not notable. It doesn't matter how long the article has been around or where it is improved compared to before you started editing it. Also, the condition of articles is not relevant. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 01:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Can't find enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show it passes WP:GNG, and clearly doesn't pass WP:NALBUMS.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep Here are some sources about the subject:   The article notes: "The band is out behind its latest album, 'Slow Hole to China,' a collection of unreleased material from the last four years. Expect to hear some of those odds and sods tracks as well as some new tunes. Don't be surprised if the band delivers plenty of the gut grind from its aptly titled 2001 album, 'Pure Rock Fury.' The disc is full of raw, powerful, in your face rock. The album, the band's finest to date, blew away the 1998 Clutch release, the slick, 'Elephant Riders.' However, 'Pure Rock Fury' fell between the tracks, even though it was released by Atlantic Records."  The article notes: "On top of that, the band will be selling 'Slow Hole to China,' a compilation of unreleased tracks on River Road, at its shows." I'm including this passing mention here because it could be used to source information in the article. Since it is a passing mention, I am not using it to establish notability.</li> <li> The article notes: "Power quartet Clutch will also perform at the Centre Theatre Saturday, getting ready to tour with Drown in December. Just what the metal guys have been clutching since their 'Elephant Riders' album is yet to be made clear, but one of the things apparently caught in their grip is a new album, 'Slow Hole to China.' It's their first in nearly three years and currently scheduled for a mid-March release. The band has said the sound is a bit heavier than their previous work and rich, with each song an exploration of it's own terrain. Expect to hear several excerpts during their set." The article was published in 2000 but the album was released in 2003, so perhaps the album was delayed.</li> </ol> I think sources 1 and 2 provide "significant coverage" about the subject and are sufficient to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)</li></ul>


 * 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.