Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yeah Yeah Yeah (The Blondes 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 redirect to Platinum Blonde (band).  So Why  07:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah Yeah Yeah (The Blondes album)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

While the band is notable, this album of theirs isn't. Searches did not turn up nearly enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG, and it clearly doesn't pass WP:NALBUM.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In fact, it quite clearly does. It has to pass one of the listed criteria, and it passes #2.  Everyone But You (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No criteria in NALBUM hands an album an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of enough reliable source coverage about the album to get it over WP:GNG. Sourceability is the one overarching condition that an album always has to meet regardless of what other NALBUM criteria it can also claim to pass — none of the NALBUM criteria exempt the album from having to be sourceable as the subject of media coverage about it. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Platinum Blonde (band) until it has coverage in reliable sources. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 15:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect per KGirlTrucker. Not every album by a notable band gets an automatic presumption of independent notability just for existing, but this one really has no significant claim to passing WP:NALBUM. It did far worse on the charts than any of the band's prior albums (it's the first album of their career which the discography list in their main article lists no chart position for at all), and it didn't spawn any noteworthy singles (its only single also peaked the lowest in the RPM100 of any song listed in their singles discography either.) Basically, it's an album that utterly stiffed and led the band to break up — it was literally 22 years before they released another album after this. There's just no independent notability claim to be made here at all, which means there are no grounds for a standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Was it a commercial disappointment?  Sure.  But did it spawn a charted single?  Yes.  Did the album itself chart?  The RPM site is down right now, but I'll keep checking to see if it made it to a national chart.  May have also charted on The Record charts ... those aren't on-line, but I can check at the reference library next time I'm down there.  Certainly got reviewed in RPM.  It's unquestionably marginal, but it's not un-notable.  Everyone But You (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It spawned a single that peaked at #75 out of 100 — a peak that wouldn't be enough in and of itself to get the band an article if that had been the best claim of notability and the only source they could have come up with. And since almost every album in existence will get at least one published review somewhere, deeming an album to be notable also requires more than just showing that one publication reviewed it. Bearcat (talk) 12:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, no. There are dozens upon dozens of bands/artists that have articles with only one low charting single on the charts to their name.  Off the top of my head, three of them include Richard and the Young Lions (one week at #99 for "Open Up Your Door"); Cellarful of Noise (peaked at #69 with "Samantha"); and Gerry Cott ("Alphabet Town" peaked at #90). The guidelines give no indication that the position at which a record charted is germane to the perceived importance of an artist, merely that it charted.


 * Don't agree with the guidelines? Have a go over there, and get 'em changed. It's quite clear that as currently written, the guidelines support notability regardless of chart position. Everyone But You (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I was one of the original participants in writing the NMUSIC guidelines in the first place, dude — so I'm just about the last person on Wikipedia with whom you could credibly pull off an "I know the rules better than you do" argument. At any rate, just for clarity's sake, this is how NMUSIC works: the one make or break condition that every album always has to meet to qualify for a Wikipedia article is that it has been the subject of enough reliable source coverage in media to clear WP:GNG. If that condition is properly met, then any chart position is fine (and even failing to chart at all wouldn't be the dealbreaker, since charting is only one of several possible notability claims) — but if the sourceability condition isn't met, then no chart position hands the album an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of proper sourcing. Whether the chart position was high or low isn't the crux of the problem here: the presence or absence of reliable source coverage about an album is the be-all and end-all of whether the album gets a Wikipedia article or not. An album can peak completely out of the top 100 and still get an article if it's properly sourceable as passing GNG, and an album can peak at #1 and not get an article if for some reason it isn't properly sourceable as passing GNG (which is probably quite rare, but very much possible.) Bearcat (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to "pull" anything. I'm reading the guidelines.  They're quite clear.  If you helped write them, fine!  But if they don't say what you mean them to say, then you need to take ownership of that, and acknowledge that they were written poorly.  Right now, they clearly state that the chart position supports notability.


 * In any event, I'm going to head to the reference library next week for archived Canadian music magazines to see if there are write-ups, reviews, chart info, etc., for this release. I certainly agree that there could be more sourcing on the article.    Everyone But You (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What NMUSIC "clearly" says is that chart position supports notability if an article is sourced properly, and that chart position does not confer an automatic notability freebie that inherently exempts an album from having to pass WP:GNG on the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Jupitus Smart  10:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep not seeing a benefit to merger. Artw (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Benefit to merger: lack of sourceability. Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 13 June 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.