Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spirit of the North


 * 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 redirect to CANO. Closing with a redirect. If someone needs to see a copy of the article to merge, just ask me and I'll help you out. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Spirit of the North

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to be a non notable album that fails WP:NALBUM. Has no sources since 2007. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to CANO. As stated by the nom, the album fails WP:NALBUM, as there are no sources included in the article, and searches brought up no real coverage in any reliable, secondary sources.  However, the band looks like it may be notable, and so their article serves as an appropriate redirect target.  Though, if it is redirected, we might also want to change its name to Spirit of the North (album), or something similar, to distinguish it from other items with the same name, such as a recent video game.  Rorshacma (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to CANO per above. Aoba47 (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I’m inclined to keep as there undoubtedly are reviews from when the album was first released. And quite likely more information from interviews with band members since then. Additionally I think merging this to a discography list or section would be a disservice and help no one.
 * So far I’ve found:
 * this but I’m looking for more.
 * this and this covers track info and musicians. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I would like to congratulate for having the wherewithal to actually lift a finger and do what is called for in this kind of situation WP:BEFORE.  In other words, use your google or favorite search engine and see if sources are available.  Had the NOM, or anybody else checked in the previous 12 plus years, the waste of time for this AfD could have been avoided for all the rest of us.  Some sources were dated after the initial tagging of the article, but they were available at the time of the nomination.  Don't be so lazy.  If you have the chops to nominate an AfD, you certainly have the chops to enter the name of this album in google.  So I did do a WP:BEFORE, I found sources that enabled me to improve the article about a 1980 album and a band I had never heard of previously.  We now have 5 sources so it cannot be proclaimed as unsourced, the original basis for the complaint does not exist.Trackinfo (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's hard to tell whether the review at Progarchives.com is a user review or not ("special collaborator"?) Even if it is not, there is only a single other WP:SIGCOV mention, though whether that is actually a significant mention is unclear. I'd say the basis for the AfD certainly does still exist.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Also I'd like to add that ad hominem attacks are WP:NOTHERE style behavior especially when the sources still seem to be trivial coverage.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As mentioned by Bearcat below, 4 of the 5 sources are not acceptable as reliable sources, and the fifth is trivial coverage. Its not that nobody "didn't have the chops" to search, its that we searched, found those results, and understood that they were not sufficient for this album to pass WP:NALBUM or the WP:GNG.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect per nom. Full disclosure, I'm actually the original creator of this — but I did so over a decade ago, when Wikipedia's notability standards for albums were very different than they are today. At the time, albums were automatically accepted as notable so long as a notable band had recorded and released them, and didn't otherwise have to have any real notability claim or any meaningful sourcing beyond the ability to verify their existence. Those rules have since been tightened up significantly, however, and an album now does have to make a much stronger claim of standalone notability beyond just the ability to verify that it exists before a standalone article becomes warranted. But the new sources that have been added are not adequate: four of the five are directory entries that are not support for notability at all, and the only one that is real media is not about the album, but just mentions the album in the process of being about the band. And even the AllMusic entry that's present as an external link does not grant it a written review, but just provides its track listing — so it doesn't constitute evidence of notability either, because it amounts to just another directory entry. Greatest hits compilations can obviously still clear our notability standards for albums, in certain circumstances — but given that they represent a reissuing of previously available material rather than a new artistic statement and therefore usually get far less critical attention, it's harder than it is for a conventional studio album, so a greatest hits album needs to show a lot more than this to clear the bar. Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect. Deletion was never appropriate. Clearly reviews exist but are all but invisible being offline. A list of CANO’s albums and how they relate to each other should be preserved. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2020 (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.