Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TORRES (Album)


 * 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

TORRES (Album)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG criteria. Note - I am also nominating the musician's page (Torres (musician)) so please avoid closing as "merge to artist" unless that page looks like it will survive. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  19:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep This article does meet at least 3 of the criteria on WP:MUSIC, the minimum number of criteria needing to be met is at least 1. This article does meet ALL of the criteria from the "general notability guideline" on WP:GNG. This album has received significant coverage from many reliable sources, all of which are independent of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stomachworm88 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC) * Keep added by for clarity. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  21:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess my issue is the questionable reliability of the sources listed. Could you go to Talk:TORRES (Album) and address 1) why you think each source listed is relaible, and 2) which 3 criteria of WP:MUSIC and which source(s) support each of the 3 criteria, and for each criteria in WP:GNG which source(s) support that criteria?  Okay, you don't have to do all of those, technically you just need to convincingly show that one reference is reliable and, using just this reference, show that notability is demonstrated.  But I'm hard to convince, and others may be as well.  The stronger your case, the more likely I am to be so convinced that I withdraw this nomination.  I'm already leaning towards withdrawing the nomination for the artist, I'm holding back because I'm still not convinced the sources listed in the album article that give significant coverage to the artist are reliable, and I haven't had time to re-review the references on the artist's page.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  21:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * all of the references listed in this album article are registered as "professional critics" on the music aggregator website metacritic, and therefore reliability, credibility, and "mainstream press" are ensured/assumed. for the guidelines... "significant coverage" meaning the sources provide full article reviews, not simply "passing mention." "Reliable" meaning the sources are both published and available. "Sources" meaning...well, notable sources. "Independent of the source" meaning the sources and the subject of the articles are separate entities and there is no conflict of interest happening. So which sources are applicable here?  Most of them; as i wrote above, all of the sources are registered with metacritic, and therefore have credibility and meet the "general notability guidelines." so if there is still any question, i suppose it would have to be, "is metacritic a reliable source?" the answer to that, i think, has to be yes. by the way, i do appreciate davidwr helping to clean up the article's reference links and what not; I am still new to creating/editing articles. so thanks! Stomachworm88 (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Our standards for using sources is different/separate/not dependant on Metacritic, there are many times that they use websites for their review aggregations that Wikipedia does not consider reliable, so it'd be best to directly describe why you think the sources are reliable rather than just depend on Metacritics approval... Sergecross73   msg me   01:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * metacritic tends to be a good gauge for a source's notability. these sources are reliable because they are published, national, copyrighted, archived, incorporated, not user-generated, reputable reviews. therefore it is probably best for someone to describe why these sources are not reliable rather than have to prove why there are. Stomachworm88 (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There's definitely a history of certain sources in used by Metacritic not being usable by Wikipedia. I'll stop arguing this point though, because regardless, sources found below like Drowned in Sound or Pitchfork Media are in fact reliable sources, so it probably should be kept. Sergecross73   msg me   14:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets WP:NMUSIC through coverage in reliable sources. Pitchfork Media, Drowned in Sound and No Ripcord  all have reviews and are all listed at WP:ALBUM/SOURCE as recommended sources for album articles. — sparklism  hey! 07:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment As a side note: the article should probably be moved to Torres (album) per WP:BANDNAME, which also applies to albums. — sparklism hey! 07:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - per the sources mentioned by Sparklism, and a number of them on the article page from the review box as well. There's enough to pass the WP:GNG. I support Sparklism's article rename as well, it doesn't currently doesn't follow WP:ALLCAPS, but his proposed title would. Sergecross73   msg me   14:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources identified by sparklism; subject meets WP:NALBUMS.  Gong   show  22:59, 10 October 2013 (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.