Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asleep Next to Science

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. (non-admin closure) Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asleep Next to Science

edit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Asleep Next to Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The band article, which included this album, was redirected to Ashley Ellyllon due to lack of references. By similarity, this article would not have enough references to exist outside of the Ashley Ellyllon article. Jax 0677 (talk) 01:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm confused... barely a month ago you were supporting the creation of an article for the band... now you are supporting deletion of their album? Not having a band article doesn't automatically mean the album article can't exist, especially when it appears to have been reviewed in at least three reliable sources. I don't see the similarity you are talking about, to be honest. Richard3120 (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's the same thing, though – we can have three good references about the album, but those three references don't give us any biographical information about the band, only about the album, so they're not particularly useful for a band article. I'm looking to see if I can find an archive copy of the Alternative Press review – that would give us three definite good sources for the album, and I'd put money on Prog having reviewed it as well. Richard3120 (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Using a "top down" approach, information about the songs is often information about the album, and information about songs and albums is often information about those who created them. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I can't really understand the nominator's comment that this article doesn't have enough references to exist by itself, when there are two sourced independent reviews already there in the article, the indication that a third one exists in print form (it doesn't appear to have been archived, unfortunately), and there are two more reviews at Sputnikmusic which are acceptable as they are written by "Emeritus" reviewers [1], [2]... there's another possibly acceptable review at Dead Press as well [3] but I'm not so sure about this being an RS. There's also a track-by-track explanation of the album in Alternative Press [4]... yes, this is WP:PRIMARY, but it can be used for factual information about the origin of the band's name and what each track is about (let's face it, any source explaining what a song is about almost certainly comes directly from the writer(s) anyway, as they are the only ones who truly know). There does seem to be plenty of information available about this album even on the internet, and very likely more in print form. The fact that the band does not at present have its own article does not preclude the album having an article – WP:NALBUM states: "an album does not need to be by a notable artist or ensemble to merit a standalone article if it meets the general notability guideline". Richard3120 (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Errr... I've just shown you how it can have enough references, by actually finding them? Richard3120 (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - "Information about songs and albums is often information about those who created them". --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I genuinely don't know what you mean by that response. It's true that no band article often means that their albums are also not notable, but not always. These six sources above are clearly about the album. I do think the band is probably notable, but at present there doesn't seem to be enough information from the sources to be able to create a decent article about the band, but if you think there is, then the band article can be recreated. Richard3120 (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Often times, information about an album by a band can be used as information about the band, which is the case here, just like 3YH and MC Luscious. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you keep saying it, but it clearly isn't the case here, as all six sources are specifically about the album... and I'm not sure what the WP:OSE argument has to do with it. Anyway, we clearly disagree, so I will say no more and let other editors decide. Richard3120 (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - [Information about album] + [information about artist who created album] > [Information about album]. Orbs is the PRIMARY artist on the album. If information about albums and songs is not information about the artist/ensemble, then why is it in the artist/ensemble article? The 3YH and MC Luscious albums are based primarily on their songs and albums. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I usually agree with the tradition of deleting an album article if the band does not have an article, but in this case (thanks to Richard3120 above) the album has reliable reviews. In fact there is enough useful coverage of the album that some of it could inform a revived article on Orbs (band). A band article existed before being redirected to Ashley Ellyllon in December (see this). Jax0677, the nominator here, apparently disagreed with that move and placed a "split" proposal at Ellyllon's article. Now Jax is lobbying for the article to be deleted, apparently for procedural reasons, but that contradicts the desire to revive the band article. The album qualifies for inclusion here and its media coverage could very well support the band. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the current placement of full information about this album in the middle of Ellyllon's article is very awkward. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Doomsdayer520: absolutely, there's more text about this album than there is about Ellyllon herself... however, I was waiting on the outcome of this AfD before removing it: if the decision is to delete the album article, then some of the sources in Ellyllon's article may need to be kept. Richard3120 (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Once a notable article is created, there is no limit to the amount of information that the article may contain. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I waited one month to split the band article from Ellyllon's article, but I was reverted almost immediately. According to WP:G4, Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". The material about the album was not added to Orbs (band) until after the AFD was concluded. I assume, however, that I am confined by WP:BRD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At Wikipedia:Deletion review there is a process in which one can argue that a previously deleted article should be recreated because the subject's notability has improved. That is discussion-oriented rather than pure procedure. I see that this was already done once for Orbs (band) but it wasn't a very robust discussion at the time. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I agree, that "it wasn't a very robust discussion". The poorly attended AFD for Orbs was relisted 3 times, which is not good practice. On a side note, I requested closure of the split discussion, but formal closure was not entertained. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The nominator failed to do a WP:BEFORE and instead resorts into his typical if-then statements. The album has received some coverage, including the sources indicated by Richard3120. The article needs a little clean-up by fixing the sources. Other than that, it easily passes WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and there should probably be a discussion on the project page. There have been a few times when I've considered creating an album article despite there not being a corresponding band article, but have always been unsure of this "rule"--or as Doomsdayer writes, "tradition"... Caro7200 (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:A9 in the Speedy Delete rules. That rule indicates that an album article should be deleted if the musician has no article... unless there is a credible claim of significance. I think this reasoning leaks into AfD discussions like this in a confusing way. Personally, I assume that if the musician is not notable, then neither is their album. But in the past I have nominated album articles for deletion with this logic, but others voted to keep because the album received pro reviews etc. In that case the solution is to create an article for the musician, which I actually did once after being overturned on deleting an album. That appears to be the solution here for Orbs (band). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Asleep_Next_to_Science&oldid=1007931363"