Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Something Supernatural


 * 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 keep. There's a general consensus here that the album is sufficiently notable and covered in enough sources. ~ mazca  talk 00:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Something Supernatural

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not a notable work. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. My initial search when redirecting found no reliable sources, and few of the online metal "zines" even covered it. AllMusic has a database entry but no review or rating (https://www.allmusic.com/album/something-supernatural-mw0002735553) The one source I found was https://www.guitarworld.com/features/something-supernatural-crobot-guitarist-chris-bishop-talks-new-album-and but it feels WP:ROUTINE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 13:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep for the WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. Meets GNG for charting on numerous album charts for one, and diminishing sources as routine is very IDONTLIKEIT. Quidster4040 (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * NOt an IDONTLIKE it response since 1) Billboard isn't returned when searching with Google and you added the charts after the nomination. Minor charts so I don't think it meets WP:NALBUM and certainly not GNG for the charting. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Billboard Heatseekers is not a significant chart; it is of value to industry insiders wishing to gauge the appeal of artists who have not yet charted proper. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - I won't comment on the nominator's motivation, but the article needed to be improved rather than deleted. However, the fact that Billboard doesn't show up in Google is a strange excuse for not looking at Billboard directly. The album made the Hard Rock Albums chart, which cannot be dismissed as readily as the Heatseekers chart. That establishes enough notability for a viable stub article, and it can be fleshed out with material from many reviews in the usual hard rock/metal zines, plus several mentions in the reliable Loudwire (e.g. ). ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 13:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Improve the article by all means, but if the best we can say about the album is that it charted, then we can list that information in the subject's article with the same effect. We do not need a permastub. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. I only did a brief search but was able to find a couple of reviews in reliable sources as well as news stories that discuss the album . There are also numerous reviews in sources which may or may not be reliable . I'm not particularly familiar with this field/genre so I can't really tell offhand which of those are considered reliable or not; some of them at a glance do not appear to pass WP:RS, whereas for others, a search in the RS noticeboard indicates editors have previously suggested they could be considered reliable for limited purposes, such as in the case of an album review. In any event, even if you threw away all the questionable ones, I think between the  coverage I've found so far in the definitely reliable sources, and the Billboard chart rankings, this subject passes notability standards enough that the article should be kept. — Hunter Kahn 16:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * First isn't a review of the album. Second, nationalrockreview.com, is not a RS. Again villagevoice.com, not about the album. Fourth and fifth are passing mentions. I stopped after the poor sourcing of those five. In short, not WP:SIGCOV in WP:RSes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * National Rock Review is a RS. The Loudwire source is a micro-review and a listing on a Best Albums of the Year list, which only further establishes notability. (Incidentally, here is another article from Loudwire about the album.) The other articles talk about aspects of the album, including individual singles and the accompanying tour. — Hunter Kahn 01:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: The album has charted, and there are reliable sources. "My initial search when redirecting" is not relevant per WP:GOOGLEHITS, ditto "Billboard isn't returned when searching with Google". WP:ROUTINE is for regular events that always get coverage; it doesn't apply to the GuitarWorld source, which is an interview with a band about their new album -- not a routine event that always gets coverage no matter what. Lots of albums get released; they don't all get reviews in Guitar World and National Rock Review. -- Toughpigs (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NALBUM states that "a recording may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria" and since all it seems to meet is charting, and no additional content, it fails notability criteria. Your argument that it charted is rubbish. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The nominator is getting very close to WP:BLUDGEON territory here. That is a matter of opinion, but if the statement "Your argument that it charted is rubbish" is meant to conclude that the album did not chart, well it did: . Or, if that statement is meant to conclude that the nominator does not think that charting matters, that argument is on the losing side of the WP:CONSENSUS process. When you emphasize the overwhelmingly flexible word may you have to accept that others will see it differently, and for valid reasons. --- <b style="color: DarkOrchid"> DOOMSDAYER 520</b> (Talk&#124;Contribs) 19:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't misrepresnt what I wrote. It charted, but not on major charts. The emphasis is not mine. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment My life is too hectic this week to weigh in with a fair keep or delete vote, given that I seldom do so unless I can devote the time to a thorough assessment of sources. That said, perhaps this subject merits a keep but it's a bit troubling to read so much rational based on editors proclaiming significance for charts that aren't, and deeming sources reliable that aren't. Under what criteria can a promotional entity such as National Rock Review be considered a Reliable Source? Because they have a wikipedia page? Please check their website's "about" link . If they have undergone a wikipedia source review and have passed the test, then editors have made a mistake, IMO. ShelbyMarion (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets GNG per the sources presented above. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 16:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.