Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The London Session (Umphrey's McGee 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   delete. As it is now past 7 April and no significant sources have been added, this article is Deleted. Nakon 03:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The London Session (Umphrey's McGee album)

 * – ( View AfD View log  (Umphrey's McGee album) Stats )

A yet-to-be released album which does not appear to satisfy any of the criteria of WP:NALBUMS. I've tried to find a way to fix the article per WP:BEFORE. I've posted on WT:ALBUM about it as well as on the article's talk page, but still have not been able to get very far. Album is discussed here in Rolling Stone but the coverage seems somewhat promotional to me. Moreover, that is only a single article and "WP:NALBUMS" says that albums are to be "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it." (Added emphasis is mine). This simply appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Marchjuly (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC); Edited to strike out subjective opinion of Rolling Stone article - 05:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:04, 16 March 20 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect per nom. SilentDan (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, as WP:TOOSOON. Imo the article title is too generic to be a suitable for a redirect.TheLongTone (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - With the album coming out in a few weeks, being from a band that has 8 prior notable albums, and there already being a large article about it from such a big name, mainstream source like Rolling Stone, deleting this seems like an exercise in time-wasting. The Rolling Stone source is a very detailed article, and considered a reliable, usuable source per WP:ALBUMS/REVSIT - to brush it off merely as just some "promotional" article is not accurate. Sources like this are going to keep popping up, not to mention advance release reviews. If it doesn't have enough coverage yet, it probably will be the time this discussion closes. Sergecross73   msg me  17:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand that RS is a mainstream reliable source. My "seems somewhat promotional to me" comment was in reference to tone of that particular article (at least my perception of it) and not the reliability of the magazine itself. That is, however, my interpretation of the article which may or may not be relevant in this particular case. Therefore, I have stricken out the comment to avoid any further problems. My understanding of notability is that it is something established through sources which already exist, not sources which may someday exist. This debate is not about the possible "future" notability of this album; It's about it's notability right now. If we allow such a rationale to be used in this particular case, then the same could be essentially argued for any article deleted for reasons of notability. That is something which really seems contrary to the spirit of "WP:TOOSOON". - Marchjuly (talk) 05:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. It was me that described that Rolling Stone article as a "puff piece", actually. I take Sergecross73's point that there's a likelihood that this album will become suitably notable for inclusion. At the same time, I'm concerned about the apparent conflict of interest that's seen a previously unregistered editor push so hard to retain the article. Not only that, but I've had cause to doubt the quality/notability of two other articles relating to Umphrey's McGee, including one of those previous eight albums: Similar Skin. There, after close to a year, we have one source that's a specialist music publication, The Aquarian Weekly; the rest are clips from the band's YouTube channel. It's easy to think the foot's in the door, so to speak, thanks to previous articles on the encyclopaedia – and I'm suspicious. If in two or three weeks' time, we find other quality sources come to light, then fine. But I really can't see why this article should be kept until then. It doesn't meet notability requirements currently, and Wikipedia has just been serving as a promotional platform for the upcoming release over the past few weeks and continues to do so. That can't be right. JG66 (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I certainly agree that articles shouldn't be used strictly for promotional purposes. But that's a rationale for cleanup, not deletion. Also, 5 seconds of searching lead to finding 5 sources dedicated to Similar Skin. It's a notable album, it just needs clean up as well. Sergecross73   msg me  14:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * @Sergecross73: Thanks for the finding another source for Similar Skin. If it hasn't already been added to the article, I'll see if I can figure a way to make it work. If you find any sources which help establish the notability of The London Sesssion, please add them to the article. This debate is about an album's notability or lack thereof, not it's tone. I'm not sure if it's possible for us to establish notability by simply cleaning up the wording. If that can be done, then I'm all for it. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I only brought up tone because JG mentioned it as a reason to delete above, which is faulty - it's not like I used it as a reason keep. I'll concede that I'm having a hard time finding sources, it's just that, as I said above, it's so close to release, that it's going to have the necessary coverage. It'd be different if you nominated this last January, but it's so close to release. If you're interested in wasting time and effort, sure go and delete, but artists that get long articles dedicated to them by high profile sources like Billboard don't have main studio albums that fly under the radar. Deletion is choosing the beaurocratic route, not the practical route.  Sergecross73   msg me  00:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, with Similar Skin, I concede I didn't bother to search for more sources at all. (Brendan Bayliss was the other article I tagged, btw.) Thanks to Sergecross73 for spending the requisite 5 seconds(!) – those American Songwriter, PopMatters, Rolling Stone reviews via Metacritic obviously quell any concerns I'd had about Similar Skin. As for The London Session, I'm all for avoiding the bureaucratic route, on Wikipedia as in real life. Right or wrong, though, I still hold on to the principle that the article appears to have been used as a promotional platform all this time; and whether there's just 2 or 3 weeks until its release (accompanied by reviews and further media coverage, no doubt), it's still 2 or 3 weeks more that the article, in its current state, doesn't belong. I admit that seeing now how Similar Skin did not in fact go unnoticed, I do it as inevitable that The London Session will become notable enough for inclusion. JG66 (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete. Clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 19.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 17:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: I agree with Sergecross73. With the sources available now and with how close it is to release, it would be a waste of time to delete this now, only to re-create the article a week or two later. Not to mention, per WP:NALBUMS, the title, track list and release date have all been announced. Kokoro20 (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 02:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Comment. The band's four most recent studio albums have charted and have received critical attention from multiple reliable sources; I expect that, upon this album's release in two weeks, similar coverage will emerge to warrant a standalone article. With this in mind, I see no harm in a redirect to the band's page, and little to be gained by outright deletion.  Gongshow   talk  01:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I've found this WXRT radio interview with the band explaining their experience of recording this album at the Abbey Road studio. For me, this, the Rolling Stones review, and the fact the band is fairly established pushes me into keep territory even if the album is not yet released. I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 10:00, 2 April 2015 (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.