Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simplicity Two Thousand

Add links
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 no consensus. With established editors not coming to a consensus about the depth of sourcing, it does not appear that a consensus will form here. Star Mississippi 02:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simplicity Two Thousand

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

Simplicity Two Thousand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The artist's article,

Afterlife (musician), was deleted years ago for not being notable. One AllMusic review doesn't appear to be enough to sustain this article for an album made by a non-notable artist. It doesn't appear to have charted or have any other coverage easily found through a Google search. As there is no target to redirect it to, nominating for deletion. Ss112 10:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

In addition to the AllMusic page, I found this writeup from Mojo and this blurb. It also appears in this ranking from Muzik which isn't much but might be worth including if this gets kept. Worth noting that I only found some of those results by searching "Simplicity 2000" rather than the title we have. QuietHere (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is relisted after a speedy deletion that failed to obtain consensus support at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 March 4.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No album reviews found, lots of tracks named "Simplicity", nothing by this person. Oaktree b (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm exploring the potential of
    WP:HEYing this so bear with me for a few more minutes (days). —Alalch E. 23:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • @QuietHere: Wanna add some more prose? There are three reviews: AllMusic, the Mojo book, and the NZ The Press mag (which I added). —Alalch E. 22:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done so. And now that I've had a look at what we've collected, I think this could reasonably squeeze through as a weak keep. QuietHere (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • @QuietHere: Nice! BTW, is there any chance for this not to be an orphan? :) —Alalch E. 02:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • There are a lot of results in here, most of which I'm sure are totally unrelated but some may be useful. QuietHere (talk) 02:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            •  Done Deorphaned by QuietHere.—Alalch E. 15:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting input on
    WP:HEY. @Ss112, Doomsdayer520, Why? I Ask, and Oaktree b: (not pinging Vipz as he hasn't commented on the merits, only on the process): The article has changed a lot since the nomination. References were found, prose was added, and it was deorphaned. I think we have a serious case to consider here, so please review the article as it is now, and leave a comment about possibly changing your !vote. Thanks—Alalch E. 14:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
We have an AfD with a only a single sort-of "weak keep" pseudo-vote, and a deletion review debate that couldn't even reach a consensus on when to close the AfD in light of a conflicting speedy delete request. I can hardly imagine a weaker justification for putting effort into developing an article. But you managed to dig up a few one-paragraph reviews from sources that seem to know nothing about the musician who made the album. This whole saga is a triumph of
procedure worship, but maybe someone will read the article once a year. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Just as notability is
WP:NALBUM: 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. Conversely, 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. (emphasis mine). —Alalch E. 15:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I never have to look at the article again so none of this bothers me. But since we're in a policy parade here, allow me to re-emphasize my own link above at "
procedure worship". Or in the official and less snarky terms, Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without considering their principles... Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures. This saga has resulted in an album being deemed notable because it narrowly evades rules on non-notability, and because the community couldn't figure out when to close a deletion discussion. Or in other words, this album is just barely by the thinnest possible sliver and closest possible shave not non-notable. Does being barely not non-notable make it notable? Maybe. I would rather see such effort put into an article on the musician. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@Doomsdayer520: Independently from your comment, I actually requested refund for the musician and got it (it's in the redirect's history). We're clearly on the same side here. This AfD leans into absurdist humor, but at the end of it, we might as well console ourselves with a cute little article. If you remember my !vote in the DRV I would have been 200% happy with this having been deleted at the time, but I became interested in the topic a little bit after the fact, mainly because of the borderlineness of this even being an album in the first place (it both is and isn't). edit: I mean... it is. —Alalch E. 15:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On a more serious note, notability is not a question of process, it's a question of content. —Alalch E. 15:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have not changed my vote from far above, and will stick with the "significant" requirement at
WP:SIGCOV. The reviews are short and vague, and even an extremely forgiving assessment finds that they just barely scratch the surface of what we need here. Again, I don't have to look at the article ever again. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting since the article was improved while the AfD was ongoing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 15:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a !delete from me, I'm not seeing substantial coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: Before I give my rationale, I want to give a shout out and credit to
    WP:NMUSIC's first criterion. Unfortunately, I don't think that it satisfies the criterion right now, but it's closer than some of the other delete !voters seem to be reckoning with. The Allmusic review ([1]) would qualify in my opinion as an edge case of a "non-trivial published work", if just. The Mojo Collection article is mostly quotes from Steve Miller and doesn't feel like it qualifies as non-trivial to me because of the paucity of coverage here ([2]). The mini guide is plainly trivial ([3]), and the last source is an interview on a non-notable blog ([4]). I also searched for sources on newspapers.com but didn't find anything in either the UK or US that I could add to this. It's definitely an edge case now, but I'm inclined to lean towards the delete side of that edge currently. Nomader (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@Nomader: Thanks! Please take look at the third actual review in the NZ daily The Press, which is accessible through the Wikipedia Library. That review and the two others (Allmusic and Mojo; the latter indeed being weaker but it's still a book, and its authors chose this album, apparently, for being seen as a significant release, representative of a certain style of that period's contemporary music, however dated and ephemeral that may seem now) are what I deem notability to rest on, certainly not the blog.—Alalch E. 16:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping here! Completely missed this reference when I was looking over the page. It's about the same length as the Allmusic one and it's something that I'd likely consider an edge case as well as a "non-trivial" work, but based on this and the other sources, I'm now on the other edge of the fence and think it's a Weak Keep. But really well done digging through to find all of this coverage. Nomader (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after the excellent sourcing discussion above, I am persuaded there is sufficient sourcing to satisfy

Wikipedia:NALBUMS.Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2023 (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/Simplicity_Two_Thousand&oldid=1147304632"