Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This England (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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

This England (album)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NALBUM Smerus (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Although this article has met the technical requirements of GA status, no one seems to have considered whether or not it has met the basic requirements for notability. WP:NALBUM lists the following criteria for notability: None of the criteria 2 -7 have been met by this recording, which therefore fails notability. by these guidelines.. The guidelines further state "An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article". no evidence of particular notability is supplied in this article.
 * 1) Has been 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.
 * 2) The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart.
 * 3) The recording has been certified gold or higher in at least one country.
 * 4) The recording has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
 * 5) The recording was performed in a medium that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc.
 * 6) The recording was in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.
 * 7) The recording has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.

WP Classical Music Project has provided additional guidelines for notability of a classical recording: viz- Criteria 2 and 3 are not met by this recording. Nor is Criterion 1, since the only sources quoted relating to the recording itself are newspaper reviews or press releases by the orchestra. The recording therefore fails notability by these standards.
 * 1) The recording has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist or composer. Some of these works must contain information beyond a mere critical review of the recording. In other words, critical reviews in several publications are not enough in themselves to establish the need for a separate article. If all you have are reviews, quote them in the discography section of the artist's or work's article.
 * 2) The recording has won a number of major awards.
 * 3) The recording has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to classical music; for example, it is a recording of an historically important performance or has influenced the interpretations of other performers.

The only justification could therefore be "multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist or composer" under WP:NALBUM. The only independent citations in this article (that are not individual blogs) specific to this album are reviews from journals. The journals cited are largely Canadian newspapers, which cannot be regarded by themselves as sufficiently satisfactory secondary sources for classical music recordings. I therefore submit that the article be deleted for failing to meet notability standards.Smerus (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: How remarkable that an article of so little consequence could achieve GA status and be considered for FA status! Because, after all, it is a good article - well written, well organized, and as comprehensive in its coverage as humanly possible, given the total inconsequentiality of its subject. Well, the best work of mice and men ... Ravpapa (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment by nominator: Hmm, ok, this is an interesting and unexpected turn of events. Since I created, expanded, and promoted this article to GA status, and have now nominated it for FA status, I'm not really sure how to respond here. I think it would be best to just let other editors review the article and its sourcing. I am more than happy to address any concerns or questions, or contribute to this discussion as needed. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: I would have expected that when requesting the deletion of an article into which such significant work has been put, the requester would take similar effort to get the facts straight. The journals cited are not "largely Canadian newspapers". The only Canadian source that I can see is CBC Radio. The Philadelphia Daily News, the Huffington Post, the Portland Mercury, etc, are most certainly not Canadian. They also all seem to meet the very first criterion: "Has been 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." My personal view is that this criterion is too wide - it would capture too many insignificant music albums - but it is what it is. Another Believer was entitled to expend significant effort writing the article on the basis that it met this Criterion and we are bound to accept and be grateful for that effort. (It is also irrelevant that the Classical Music Project has imposed "additional guidelines". There is no reason why there should be additional requirements for different types of music.) Syek88 (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - I would suggest the nominator step back and think about what the criteria are, and more importantly why we have them. Notability guidelines do not exist in a vacuum, and were created for a specific purpose. Read WP:WHYN. They are not there simply to create hurdles for hurdles sack. They are designed to have articles that can meet other polices/guidelines, and to not have one sentence articles. In other words, notability guidelines exist so that we can have good articles. Here, we have a Good article, and assume it passed those criteria to make GA, and thus, it would pass the GNG. That is, to have an articles pass GA, it inherently passes the GNG. In sum, notability criteria exists to ensure we have well-written, balanced, full articles on topics, which is what GA has determined this article is. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My limited experience of the GA nomination and review process leads me to believe that it is not particularly robust. It would surprise me if a non-notable article made it to GA status, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that GA status guarantees that the GNG has been passed. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - At the risk of stating the completely obvious, this article clearly meets Criterion 1 of the WP:NALBUM GNG:
 * Specific to recordings, a recording may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria:
 * 1. Has been 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.
 * This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries (note2: What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad.)
 * There are multiple published works that are reliable, not self-published by the Symphony, and independent from the album in question, all works that have published on the subject of the article:


 * • The Oregonian, a regional newspaper (and by regional I mean the West Coast of the U.S. —the left side of the map— south of the Canadian border, north of the Mexican border), a newspaper currently with readership only slightly smaller than The Seattle Times

• Philadelphia Daily News, a newspaper on the East Coast of the U.S. (not a "Canadian journal")

• The Huffington Post, a website known for covering American/international politics, but also arts and entertainment

• CBC Radio 2, which actually is Canadian, an FM station serving 2.1 million listeners, weekly, if you believe the WP article

• Multiple other sources, with smaller readership, but nevertheless reliable and independent, including the Portland Mercury, Oregon ArtsWatch, and The Columbian, a Pacific Northwest newspaper in Vancouver (Washington, not B.C., Canada)
 * Cheers! — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Upon reflection...A student once wrote about "not meaning to cast asparagus on that, but…" In my response above I may have been guilty of inadvertently tossing asparagus at my Canadian friends and the Canadian side of my family, which was not my intent, and for which I apologize. Of course there are plenty of excellent independent, reliable, third party sources from Canada— the one Canadian source cited in the article named the album its "Disc of the week", after all. I suspect there may be something else going on in this AfD discussion, though, and a fundamental difference about the asserted non-notability of the album. The review by Stephen Ritter, who has a 20-year career reviewing for American Record Guide, Fanfare, and Audiophile Audition, described what I have been thinking: he wrote,
 * Or, in this case, that an American symphony’s recording of British music is non-notable, and that any (assumed) provincial publications writing about it "cannot be regarded by themselves as sufficiently satisfactory secondary sources for classical music recordings". Wait, was that asparagus on the screen? —Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep, though the coverage does seem a bit thin. I'd note this old chestnut of an AFD, which I believe clearly established that topic-specific guidelines do not supersede WP:GNG (or actually, in that case, WP:BIO): Articles for deletion/Alex Nimo (3rd nomination) The topic-specific ones are useful for making clear determinations, but the more general guidelines apply regardless. Oddly, the Oregonian's coverage does not mention the album by name, but on review it does cover it in some depth; the Mercury is not an especially significant publication for this purpose, and said of its list of reviews, "We had so many responses that they didn’t all fit in the paper, but we've got them all here" -- and only one of the dozens of reviewers included This England. I think this one should be eliminated from the Wikipedia entirely. The Philadelphia Daily News review does stand out, since it's far from regionally connected, and the review is substantive. I haven't looked at the other sources closely, but by my interpretation of the GNG it would only take a couple more to make it qualify, and I'm going to guess that a few of the other sources are similar in quality/applicability to the Oregonian and PDN. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 07:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep per Grand'mere Eugene's rationale. I did the same search for sources. Icebob99 (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2017 (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.