Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thank Heaven for Little Girls (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The result was   Withdrawn by nominator Niteshift36 (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank Heaven for Little Girls (album)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested PROD placed by another editor. Fails WP:NALBUMS. No evidence that the album ever charted at Allmusic or Billboard. Band is of questionable notability. No evidence of significant coverage by reliable sources. Article only cites a couple of short reviews (one is only one paragraph) Niteshift36 (talk) 07:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The notability of the band is not questionable at all, and this album has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources.--Michig (talk) 07:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Where is all that significant coverage? All I'm seeing is short reviews. And yes, the band is questionable. They are a bunch of guys who never charted anything. They got some coverage because they did stuff like cut themselves. They might end up in an AfD soon.Niteshift36 (talk) 07:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You'd be wasting yours and everyone else's time if you brought that to AFD.--Michig (talk) 08:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How about if we stay on this for now. Where is the significant coverage from multiple sources? Niteshift36 (talk) 08:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Reviews from Allmusic and Q already in the article, and there's also a review from Maximumrocknroll, partially viewable on Google Books. That's three reviews, all good sources, which is plenty.--Michig (talk) 09:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I mentioned the first two in the nom. The review at Allmusic is a single paragraph. Do you honestly think one paragraph is significant? The other review isn't viewable. The one you just linked here is an entry in a magazine for a short review. These are trivial. Where is the significant coverage you said exists? Niteshift36 (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The 'other review' is a substantial review in a respected print magazine. If it isn't viewable online that makes no difference. These are all non-trivial.--Michig (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A one paragraph review is not significant. You can make that claim all day, but I don't think it's going to fly. The one you linked above is an equally short one. The only one we can't see is the one you claim is "substantial". Then again, you claim a single paragraph is significant, so I have to wonder what you'd consider substantial. Is that a paragraph and a half? Niteshift36 (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * One source you use is one page, yet that source is used in at least 7 different articles. How significant can the coverage of each album be if at least 7 of them are on the same page? Can't be that in depth. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The Dwarves are notable, and so is the album per WP:NALBUMS: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." Reviews, etc here.  Lugnuts  (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The key word is "may". Look at the rest of NALBUMS: "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting.". The article is a single sentence and a track listing. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So it needs expanding with the available sources, not deleting.--Michig (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just putting more stuff in won't make it notable. A bunch of trivial mentions and one-two paragraph reviews aren't significant coverage. I offered you an alternative, but you don't seem interested. Niteshift36 (talk) 10:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and Friendly Advice - band and album are plenty notable. Before this process was started the article certainly needed improvement, but that is not automatically a reason to propose deletion. Instead we should recommend that the WP community improve the article through the use of stub tags and edit tags. That is exactly what is happening now, thanks to Michig's additions to the article. Also, Niteshift36 is distorting this debate by nitpicking on the definition of "significant" as if this notion has never been discussed anywhere else in WP ever before. Such arguments are not very instructive in isolation. If anyone truly believes that the album article should be deleted because of the conceptions of "significant" in the above debate, you should start the AfD process for hundreds if not thousands of articles. Or, you could call for their improvement as passionately as Niteshift36 is calling for this one's deletion.  D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 19:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no distortion and your "friendly advice" is more an accusation of bad faith than friendly. The word significant was placed in the criteria for a reason, to exclude trivial mentions. If you don't like that criteria, then start a RfC to change it. A single paragraph review isn't significant. Having the album mentioned with at least 6 other albums on the same page of a book entry isn't significant. There is a pattern here. The same couple of sources being used over and over. That shows more of a lack of notability. The same couple of places paid attention. All the rest ignored them. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Clarification: I was not accusing Niteshift36 in particular, but I admit it probably looks that way. Instead I was commenting on a pattern in these discussions of demanding the deletion of an article that really just needs improvement, then refusing to admit that the AfD has resulted in the types of improvement that are supposed to be the desired outcome of the community editing process. Many people do this, and it would be nice to see someone say simply "oops, I thought the article should be deleted but it really just needed improvement, thanks to everyone for their contributions." I have even done that myself here. And I still disagree with the stiff and unyielding definition of "significant" and recommend flexibility in this type of discussion. I have voted accordingly, and so has everyone else. D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 20:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. I guess I was confused when you said "Niteshift36 is distorting this debate by nitpicking...". Somehow I took that to mean that you were talking about me distorting and nitpicking. So instead of "distoring" and "nitpicking", I am "stiff and unyielding". Glad I got the upgrade.Niteshift36 (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - The band seems to be notable and this seems to be an official release on a notable label. The album appears to have received significant coverage from multiple sources (including Allmusic - I disagree with the nominator about the significance of that one). Rlendog (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. There appears to be significant coverage for this in multiple sources, including offline reviews; meets WP:NALBUMS.  Gongshow  Talk 06:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep basically what Rlendog said. Hekerui (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I started this page a while ago and I'm now visiting it again for the first and am pleased by how it's grown from others' contributions. In my opinion, that fact alone merits keeping the article.  There seem to be 2 sides making subjective and somewhat-nonresponsive assertions that boil down to different standards of significance.  There are no tangible and established standards for significance, as such merely pointing out that something is not significant has little substantive value, particularly when there exists an opposition who is willing to assert that it is significant.  More reviews were asked for, and more reviews were given.  These reviews were impugned, but without any standard aside from the impugner's own subjective ideas.  How many paragraphs does a review need to be to be considered significant?  While speculating on the intent of the framers of the Notability Guidelines is dicey, I agree that the word significant was included to stem a mass of articles no one cares about.  However, I think more than that it was picked because it is intrinsically subjective and thus requires debate and case-by-case application.  On the side of inclusion there are arguments and evidence given that are specific to the article in question (reviews).  The advocates of deletion, however, are applying a generic semantic distinction which undercuts the power of case-by-case application of the guidelines.  In this case, it seems that there is more support for inclusion.  So yeah, keep it. Jimmuhk (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "[P]leased by how it's grown"? I should think so. Yappy2bhere (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2010 (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.