Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It Is What It Is (ABN album)
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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 There is a lot of off-topic bickering and repetitive argument that this afd could have done without. Anyway, it seems clear the result is Redirect to
talk) 18:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
It Is What It Is (ABN album)
This page was previously deleted via
Phils) 02:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 02:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keeeeep #62 on Billboard's Hot 200, Aug 2, 2008, & #10 on their R&B Albums, passing WP:MUSIC. Should not have been prodded. 86.44.23.221 (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From Phils) 12:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the above IP address has only one contribution, and it's to this AfD. Phils) 14:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would you ask people to note that? Is it to put across the impression of yourself as a wikipedia insider who should be listened to more than an outsider, regardless of the merits of the arguments? Seeing as my comment was strictly factual, I can't think of any other reason, but perhaps you can.
- Note that the above IP address has only one contribution, and it's to this AfD.
- WP:MUSIC holds a charting record to be an indicator of notability. And ABN consists of two artists each notable in their own right, each with articles here, as this article both notes and links to. Your claim that there was no indication of importance for your prod is therefore shambolic, even if we accept that there is no onus on you to research beyond what the article presents before deleting editors' work. Above, you type "This doesn't" when it's clear that you have no idea what coverage it received. Did you check print issues of the Southern hip hop publication, Ozone? Don't you think they may have written about a rap record by Texas artists at #63 on Billboard's Hot 200? Did you thumb through back issues of the premier national hip hop publications, The Source and XXL? Of course you didn't.
- If you cannot accept that a record charting at #63 on Billboard is notable, let's look at coverage as far as what's accessible online: we have reviews from the austinist [1] and 002houston [2]; Shea Serrano used its title to head his 2008 wrap-up for Houston Press[3], calling it in the body a "stellar" record that was part of why Trae deserved national attention. It's mentioned (substantively) in this mag article, and Pitchfork Media in passing calls it "this summer's outpouring of noir" [4]; Dan Greenpeace's well-regarded zine Fat Lace wrote it up [5]; it's been written about by Andrew Nosnitsky who covers rap for NPR, and has written for the Washington Post and XXL,[6] and Al Shipley, who has written for Scratch, Stylus and Pitchfork, rated it among his albums of 2008.[7] I'm more than satisfied that this is a notable record by a notable act. 86.44.32.61 (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you cannot accept that a record charting at #63 on Billboard is notable, let's look at coverage as far as what's accessible online: we have reviews from the austinist [1] and 002houston [2]; Shea Serrano used its title to head his 2008 wrap-up for Houston Press[3], calling it in the body a "stellar" record that was part of why Trae deserved national attention. It's mentioned (substantively) in this mag article, and
- Of the sources you provided, I only see perhaps one or two that would likely be considered reliable. Whether that's considered "signficant coverage" or not is for the community to judge. As for your contributions to this AfD, they are welcomed, as are anyone's. I haven't made any accusations or intimations as to your purpose here. All I said was that there were minimal contributions from your IP address. Phils) 19:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of the sources you provided, I only see perhaps one or two that would likely be considered reliable. Whether that's considered "signficant coverage" or not is for the community to judge. As for your contributions to this AfD, they are welcomed, as are anyone's. I haven't made any accusations or intimations as to your purpose here. All I said was that there were minimal contributions from your IP address.
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 02:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
DeleteRedirect tounreliable or don't cover the album significantly. The one paragraph in the 002houston link may be useful as a source, but even if it is, it's not enough to show notability. The fact that it charted on the Billboard 200 makes it more likely to be notable, but without coverage in reliable sources, there's no notability. The album was created by two separate artists, so it can't be made into a redirect. Timmeh 03:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- No, that wasn't "pointed out" at all ("perhaps one or two" doesn't indicate any evaluation to me, especially since two=multiple independent sources). The austinist and 002houston reviews, plus Billboard printing its chart entries, are non-trivial coverage. (A Billboard chart entry might be the very definition of non-trivial coverage). The Houston Press article uses the record as a keynote of its year, demonstrating its importance to a local scene. An established, if irreverent, rap outlet (founded 1997), and two established rap writers who might be fairly described as experts in the field, clearly consider it notable. Given all these indications of notability and what further coverage might be out there, the fact it can't be merged is just another reason to keep. 86.44.17.98 (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Repeating the same arguments doesn't help whatever case you might be arguing. If you can provide proof that the sources should be considered reliable, it would help your argument. Charting does not establish notability, and the two questionable sources do not, in my view, constitute "significant coverage" as per Phils) 17:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't address you, KV5, your last post is unanswered above, but thanks for your take on things anyhow. 86.44.17.98 (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, I made several new points (Billboard chart entry obviously significant coverage in itself, rap writers coverage being in their field of expertise, all of this indicating liklihood of more coverage elsewhere) but don't let that stop you being reductive. 86.44.17.98 (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a discussion, and anyone is welcome to contribute. I would ask that you remain Phils) 18:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's perfectly civil to point out the dishonesty of attempting to undercut my honest work explaining my view to another editor by describing it as repeating the same arguments. If you don't share my view that, say, the Houston Press article demonstrates significance to a local scene, or any other point I made above, that's fine, but it seems more like you're the one taking this personally, frankly. 86.44.17.98 (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "don't let that stop you being reductive" is an uncivil comment and I will ask you again to refrain. I take nothing that you say personally, but I don't share your view that the provided sources are reliable. I also don't see that you have made any contributions to this article, unless you are editing while not logged in here, and only editing that article with an account, which is probably not the best practice. Phils) 18:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In your view, that's uncivil. I acknowledge your view but don't act like that's an objective fact: it isn't, and you might consider whether it is worth getting bogged down in (asking me twice to refrain, for instance, even once seems hair-trigger to me). You were being reductive. For someone not taking anything personally, you seem to be doing a lot of work trying to find I'm doing something "wrong". I have not so far edited the article, just as my contributions suggest. Has someone somehow similar to me been editing the article, or was that pure blue-sky thinking on your part? 86.44.17.98 (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Or are you saying there's some onus on me to edit the article? Really it's hard to know what you are saying. 86.44.17.98 (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears that I misinterpreted your earlier comment that your "honest work" included some kind of involvement with this article that didn't involve this AfD. My apologies. Regardless, talk page guidelines dictate that any user may be involved in a discussion and thus you have no right to dismiss my comments because you "didn't address me". You are not speaking to one person in a discussion, you are speaking to a community. I have not at any point during this discussion been disparaging of any contributions you have made; I have simply pointed out that you have not provided any reliable sources, per site guidelines, to support claims that the subject of this article is notable. You have claimed that several articles above establish notability, and I have attempted to refute those claims. That is in no way a reduction of your work. Phils) 18:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears that I misinterpreted your earlier comment that your "honest work" included some kind of involvement with this article that didn't involve this AfD. My apologies. Regardless, talk page guidelines dictate that any user may be involved in a discussion and thus you have no right to dismiss my comments because you "didn't address me". You are not speaking to one person in a discussion, you are speaking to a community. I have not at any point during this discussion been disparaging of any contributions you have made; I have simply pointed out that you have not provided any reliable sources, per site guidelines, to support claims that the subject of this article is notable. You have claimed that several articles above establish notability, and I have attempted to refute those claims. That is in no way a reduction of your work.
- Or are you saying there's some onus on me to edit the article? Really it's hard to know what you are saying. 86.44.17.98 (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In your view, that's uncivil. I acknowledge your view but don't act like that's an objective fact: it isn't, and you might consider whether it is worth getting bogged down in (asking me twice to refrain, for instance, even once seems hair-trigger to me). You were being reductive. For someone not taking anything personally, you seem to be doing a lot of work trying to find I'm doing something "wrong". I have not so far edited the article, just as my contributions suggest. Has someone somehow similar to me been editing the article, or was that pure blue-sky thinking on your part? 86.44.17.98 (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "don't let that stop you being reductive" is an uncivil comment and I will ask you again to refrain. I take nothing that you say personally, but I don't share your view that the provided sources are reliable. I also don't see that you have made any contributions to this article, unless you are editing while not logged in here, and only editing that article with an account, which is probably not the best practice.
- It's perfectly civil to point out the dishonesty of attempting to undercut my honest work explaining my view to another editor by describing it as repeating the same arguments. If you don't share my view that, say, the Houston Press article demonstrates significance to a local scene, or any other point I made above, that's fine, but it seems more like you're the one taking this personally, frankly. 86.44.17.98 (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a discussion, and anyone is welcome to contribute. I would ask that you remain
- BTW, I made several new points (Billboard chart entry obviously significant coverage in itself, rap writers coverage being in their field of expertise, all of this indicating liklihood of more coverage elsewhere) but don't let that stop you being reductive. 86.44.17.98 (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KV5 shares my take on this matter and has explained it well. No more than one of the provided sources is reliable and provides significant coverage. The Austinist review was not written by one of the site's listed staff, so it's not reliable. A Billboard chart listing, containing just the title and a number, is not necessarily significant coverage; you can't write more than a sentence using just that source. If you can provide reliable sources that cover the album in detail, I'll change my !vote to keep per WP:N. For now though, from what I've seen through some research, I'm still in favor of deleting the article because of a lack of notability. Timmeh 23:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't address you, KV5, your last post is unanswered above, but thanks for your take on things anyhow. 86.44.17.98 (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Repeating the same arguments doesn't help whatever case you might be arguing. If you can provide proof that the sources should be considered reliable, it would help your argument. Charting does not establish notability, and the two questionable sources do not, in my view, constitute "significant coverage" as per
- I've changed my !vote to redirect per J04n's creation of ABN (rap duo), a subject that is more likely to be notable than the album in question. The album can be mentioned at the duo's article, and any relevant and sourced information can be merged there. Timmeh 17:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that wasn't "pointed out" at all ("perhaps one or two" doesn't indicate any evaluation to me, especially since two=multiple independent sources). The austinist and 002houston reviews, plus Billboard printing its chart entries, are non-trivial coverage. (A Billboard chart entry might be the very definition of non-trivial coverage). The Houston Press article uses the record as a keynote of its year, demonstrating its importance to a local scene. An established, if irreverent, rap outlet (founded 1997), and two established rap writers who might be fairly described as experts in the field, clearly consider it notable. Given all these indications of notability and what further coverage might be out there, the fact it can't be merged is just another reason to keep. 86.44.17.98 (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I find that this lengthy discussion has missed the point. Many other album articles have been allowed to survive, per precedent, with evidence of charting in Billboard. For example, see WP:ALBUMS that charting in Billboard is evidence of notability. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the point is that Phils) 15:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The debate on this page is being conducted as if this is the first time these subjective issues have ever come up on WP. With the uncertain guidelines under discussion, it will help to go with precedent. As I said above, an appearance on the Billboard charts is considered notable enough for hundreds of other WP album articles. AllMusic is definitely reliable and has qualified as a source of notability for hundreds of other WP album articles. The debate on this page is being carried out in isolation as if there are not many other album articles that can be used for guidance. If the album here is deleted for the reasons discussed in this debate, well you will have to initiate AfDs for hundreds and maybe thousands of album articles. Meanwhile, KV5 said in the above comment "What I see currently in this article doesn't, in my opinion, qualify as significant coverage." But the IP editor cited several possibly useful sources up near the top of this debate, so the article has room for improvement before it is deleted in haste. That's what the "refimprove" tag or a stub tag is supposed to accomplish. I will start adding references to the article and I encourage the IP editor to do the same. My vote is still Keep but I will make no more contributions to this debate because it is clearly just going around in circles. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For goodness sake. 1) The delete votes are confusing "significant" with "lengthy"! Hearing a billboard hot 200 entry described as "a mere mention" is fucking retarded. This is common sense and in the realm of fact, not opinion, but if it helps, think "non-trivial" and then compare the indications of triviality that WP:MUSIC provides.
- 2) Generalist critic Chris Weingarten, of Rolling Stone etc., & author of the 33⅓ book on It Takes A Nation of Millions..., lists it as among the top records of 2008 [8]. So we now have three critics who publish in not merely reliable but authoritive sources who consider this notable, yet people who may not know the first thing about anything disagree. This time look up "experts in the field" in your documentation if you need to get a handle on this.
- 3) I have no idea why theaustinist is being dismissed, unless you think they pay a music editor to sit there and look pretty rather than control what's on her site. Consult the WP:ALBUMS crew if you doubt: i'm pretty confident that massive consensus is in line with this being good to go.
- 4) No print sources have been checked yet utmost confidence is still maintained by some in the face of all we have learned that none exist. 86.44.33.121 (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the point is that
KeepRediect toABN (rap duo). I admit that the coverage of this album is remarkable sparse, especially considering its success in the charts, but hip hop albums, particularly the 'underground' stuff, doesn't get much mainstream press. The fact that it still reached 62 on the Billboard 200 is remarkable in itself. As previously brought up there is no logical redirect location for this article as it was recorded by 2 artists, if there were a destination I would say redirect. So, the chart history combined with the Houston press article] is enough for me. J04n(talk page) 17:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How does the fact that an album page can or cannot be redirected somewhere affect notability? Also, this album is only mentioned once, and briefly, in the Houston Press article. Timmeh 20:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good question, unfortunately I only have a fair answer. With a redirect at least there is something, a search term that will bring one to an appropriate page for the reader to get some information. Without it we have a successful album with nothing in our encyclopedia. If it does get deleted I would appreciate it if it gets userfied to me. The two rappers have done two albums together now, I may try to put together an article about them as a duo. J04n(talk page) 21:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the album is mentioned in either of the rappers' articles it should show up in a search. Timmeh 21:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- note: there is now a page for the duo: ]
- Good work, and thanks for taking the initiative. Timmeh 17:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also support a redirect to the duo since there is now an article. Their first album, which was previously deleted per another AfD and recently speedied as reproduction of deleted material, could also be redirected now. Phils) 01:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If an admin could userfy their first album to me I'll incorporate anything useful into the parent article. I assume it was called Assholes by Nature (album), thanks J04n(talk page) 03:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll do so now. Phils) 13:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Phils) 13:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good-looking article, but i think the logic is somewhat tortured: the album makes the group notable, but not the album itself, which is more like wackypedia amirite. I don't know why you would want to force readers to go to a commercial, ad-laden site just to get a tracklisting that should be here anyway? 86.44.33.121 (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll do so now.
- If an admin could userfy their first album to me I'll incorporate anything useful into the parent article. I assume it was called Assholes by Nature (album), thanks J04n(talk page) 03:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also support a redirect to the duo since there is now an article. Their first album, which was previously deleted per another AfD and recently speedied as reproduction of deleted material, could also be redirected now.
- Good work, and thanks for taking the initiative. Timmeh 17:12, 30 January 2010 (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.