Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Got to Fly

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 Marian Call. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got to Fly

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

Non notable album fails WP:NALBUM I redirected to the artist but this was reverted. Mo ainm~Talk 11:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more information, the cover of the album, and the album credits. If there is any more information I could add please elaborate. I've seen album pages that have remained on Wikipedia with far less information.Cyantre (talk) 11:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It's not the amount of information that's the issue, it's the references - WP:NALBUMS says an album requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". So I think that's what you need to aim for - try to find such coverage in reliable sources and add it as references -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So why is it that I've come across several album pages with no references and far less information that haven't been marked for deletion? Case in point, every album page for the artist Jonathan Coulton. Marian Call is an independent artist, so any album reviews would be linked to iTunes, Amazon, and/or CD Baby.Cyantre (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Mo ainm~Talk 13:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's probably just that nobody checking for unreferenced articles has noticed them - it might not seem fair, but it's a bit like being caught speeding and trying to get off by complaining "But other people have got away with it". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then what references more do you possibly need for a simple album listing? Independent artists don't have their music rated by Rolling Stone or Spin, so should that make the information invalid? It seems rather biased. Cyantre (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't really offer any more than WP:NALBUMS. If the album can't satisfy that, then I'm afraid it is unlikely to be eligible for inclusion - but that's something the admin who closes this discussion will have to decide. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've read what it states there and this article does seem eligible for inclusion based on the context, though the user who marked it for deletion did so before I had the chance to flesh the article out a bit more and upload the cover art to Wikimedia, and one of the criteria the user who initially flagged this article wanted was an image.Cyantre (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does cultural relevance count for anything? The album has been cited numerous times on BadAstronomy, has had fan videos made of some of it's songs and ties in pretty heavily to Joss Whedon's Firefly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholasmonks (talk • contribs) 07:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made a first stab at adding sources relevant to the album as requested in WP:NALBUMS. Please correct as you see fit.--AAltair (talk) 08:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I added and tweaked the reference list based on what you added and suggestions from Marian too. Cyantre (talk) 10:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How am I suppose to add a source that verifies that the album is also available for digital download if Wikipedia does not allow links to web-sites that link to a page with the express purpose of selling items? Cyantre (talk) 09:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being available for digital download is not really of sufficient notability. What we need is reliable third-party references - i.e. sources that have independently talked about the album. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added six different sources where people are talking about the album, as well as cited references where required. Cyantre (talk) 10:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good - I'll have a look over them a bit later when I have a bit of time Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I hope this article won't be deleted, especially now that there are a bunch of sources, reviews, and cover art for the album.Cyantre (talk) 09:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm still undecided on this. Of the two refs in the References section, the first just confirms that the album exists, and the second is someone selling it. Of the reviews in the "Reviews" section, two are blatantly blogs, two (the "Geekdad" ones) look like social networking/bloggy things of some sort by a private individual, and the others are sites I've never heard of - my not hearing of them isn't conclusive, of course, but I'm just not seeing anything written by mainstream music sources. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She isn't a mainstream artist, she is very much an independent artist that achieved acclaim through the Internet and social networking as the main article states. You're not going to find any of her songs in the Billboard Top 100, or an article on her by Rolling Stone. As someone stated earlier the information is completely relevant to the artist as well as fans of her music. She has strong connections to both the television series Firefly and Battlestar Galatica and is very well known among the community, and was one of the most requested acts for w00tstock. This studio album is as referenced as it possibly could be, pulling information and reviews from all over the Internet. The first source that you said just proves the albums exists is a source because it shows that the song 'It Was Good for You Too' is a new recording, which is why it is a relevant source. The other source confirms that the information about the release of the album being limited in physical availability and initially being available to purchase as that particular fan-convention. Each source confirms the information stated, so I really don't see the problem.

As I've stated earlier I've seen hundreds of album articles far less detailed than this and with no references at all. On top of that I read through the list of articles that have been marked for deletion with the WP:NALBUM tag and every one that I saw was either for some irrelevant single or a bootleg. This is a studio album with plenty of reviews and relevant information crediting everyone who worked on the album.Cyantre (talk) 11:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, since the album had a limit physical release not everyone will have access to the liner notes, making the information in this article even more relevant.Cyantre (talk) 11:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I do appreciate the difficulties with independent artists, and I'm not sure the Wikipedia policy guidelines cover them adequately - hence my inability to decide either way. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to artiste's article as per WP:NALBUMS. This really hasn't risen to the level of notability required for a stand-alone article, not enough sales, not enough independent reviews in reliable sources etc. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wholeheartedly disagree, this artist has risen to quite a significant level of notability within the independent music genre. The guidelines are incredibly biased towards independent artists and the inconsistency within the Wikipedia staff is appalling, as I could easily pull up at least a dozen independent album articles with little to no sources that have far less information than this article provides.Cyantre (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I haven't queried whether the artist is notable or not. The case is that the album isn't notable enough on its own for a standalone article. That's why a redirect is entirely appropriate in this case. Pulling up other examples is pointless - other articles don't affect this one, policy and guidelines affect this article, and the policy for albums that haven't risen to a sufficient level of notability is that they get redirected to the artistes page. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:36, 1 July 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.