Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Magick


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Star  Mississippi  12:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Super Magick

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

Found no signs of notability (some notable publications covered the announcement/lead single but it's not exactly NMUSIC#1 level) and redirected. That's been undone, so now we're here. Got a response on my talk page including "That's an actual published album by a known rock band that has been producing albums for decades"; just wanna emphasize NOTINHERITED here in case they or anyone else is thinking of bringing that up. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 01:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 01:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The St. Louis Post Dispatch wrote that it was “finally” available, meaning it was anticipated and notable. Repeating that several notable publications did write about it as well.
 * This group has released several singles that don’t need their own pages, several live albums that don’t need their own page. However, this album was released on various media and noted in the press. This is a notable article, and sits alongside other albums in their discography, for informational and educational purposes.
 * I would like to note that people come to Wikipedia to find information, and undoubtedly will look for this album’s information. Deleting the page does not serve users’ interests at all. Louie Mantia (talk) 01:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Or "finally" just means "after a long time", and it has been a decade since their last album. And even if that were a good sign for notability, the piece is mostly an interview in which the writer only really says the same things about the album that the announcements cover, including the 93x "article" which is stated at the bottom as a press release from Frankly Media. The Riff review is good, but it's still not enough, and I know there's nothing else because I already looked and saw all of what you've added but that was it, hence why I redirected in the first place.
 * I already brought up NOTINHERITED because it was clearly necessary to mention, but I didn't realize I would need to point out multiple other sections of that page as well, namely WP:INTERESTING, WP:USEFUL, and WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING which pretty much all came up in your case just now. And if users are "undoubtedly" looking for this info, it can always be added to the band's page where I sent the redirect and readers will find it there just fine and be satisfied. I'll even support that as a merge argument if you're on board for it. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 02:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The reason this article was nominated for deletion was there were “no signs of notability.”
 * After that, it was immediately noted by you (QuietHere) that there were some notable publications. There is also at least one notable review, from Riff Magazine. I think we can safely say that “no signs of notability” is an inaccurate assessment. An argument can be made that there are “few” (by what measure?), but I think “none” would be too far.
 * I think these few sources specifically address the requirement to prove it is notable, but as @Oaktree b also pointed out, it may be too soon, as the album was released only a week ago. It’s possible more will come up, but as of this moment, it does seem to me that there are valid, suitable sources already cited in the article.
 * Entirely separate from my argument and unrelated to the bit about deletion, I am a bit hurt by the condescending tone you’ve (QuietHere) brought to this, notably “in case they or anyone else is thinking of bringing that up” and “I didn't realize I would need to point out multiple other sections of that page as well,” both of which imply some level of superiority, which I think is just hurtful and not constructive for this discussion. I think your argument can be made without that. Louie Mantia (talk) 12:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting for more discussion and input from editors. But from what I'm reading here, deletion is off the table and we are trying to decide between Keeping a standalone article or a Redirect/Merge closure. Either way, the content would be preserved in case there are more reviews in the future. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: Also found this in the Tennessean which is an interview with the singer, but talks about the album. With the American Songwriter article, just barely enough. Is likely TOOSOON as the album was released on the 3rd of May, more might pop up. Oaktree b (talk) 04:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I looked at this Riff Magazine link, it's not listed as a RS in Wiki Project album, but it seems ok. Another interview where they also talk about the album. Oaktree b (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Redirect to Better Than Ezra. At the very least, this album a likely search by those who have an interest. The redirect can be page protected as needed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2024 (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.