Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Stranger (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. v/r - T P 18:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Little Stranger (album)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The musician on the album does not have her own Wiki page and no other pages link to this album. LongLiveMusic (talk) 06:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...neither of which are deletion criteria. The question is whether peaking at 32 on a national album chart or 7 on the New Zealand artist chart is sufficiently notable. Caveat: I'll fix the #2 reference link next, so that it actually does go to the week in question. Dru of Id (talk) 06:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; chart listings clearly pass
WP:MUSIC. Ironholds (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep but rename~~ Delete or merge as
WP:NALBUMS, "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." So the album cannot currently survive on its own but can be a section at the notable artist's article. --→gab 24dot grab← 20:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Uh. Actually, albums can exist without articles on the corresponding artist. Ironholds (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but an album must be notable independent of the artist to survive PRODding, and merely charting does not in itself constitute an album's notability. Notability for the artist actually is constituted by charting. --→gab 24dot grab← 13:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 22:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article." The artist would seem to have no notability except for this album, and the album does not satisfy the criteria of being recorded by a notable artist. Seems like a weak case of circular-referencing where no independent notability exists. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misreading the guidelines. There's no circularity. The artist is presumed notable for having a hit album. That rule doesn't mention that the album has to be notable. Notability guidelines commonly use achievements to quantify if someone is likely to be famous, well-known, or important, and hence notable, but that doesn't necessarily mean that their every achievement deserves an article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously. It charted and there's coverage. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] The saddest thing about this nomination is that the nominator did not provide a valid reason for deleting the article. Till 14:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Till. Passes or notability bar. And I agree with him about the invalid nominator's rationale. --Cavarrone (talk) 02:33, 24 June 2012 (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.