Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Better World (album)

:{{la|A Better World (album)}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A_Better_World_(album) Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|A Better World (album)}})

Non-notable album. Jax 0677 (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:BEFORE. Multiple coverage can be found in seconds. [http://spillmagazine.com/spill-album-review-chris-de-burgh-better-world/], [http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/14727512.Chris_de_Burgh_s_new_album_offers_vision_of_A_Better_World_ahead_of_2017_York_gig/], [http://www.torontosun.com/2017/02/10/chris-de-burgh-singing-a-new-tune], etc. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Wiki criteria for notability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Albums) include "The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart." This album was top 10 (number 7) in Germany, remaining on the charts for 3 months (https://www.offiziellecharts.de/album-details-311499), and was number 60 in the UK (http://www.officialcharts.com/search/albums/a%20better%20world/). If this is not sufficient to qualify for notability, then I would suggest that neither are either of de Burgh's previous two albums (The Hands of Man and Home), both of which have individual pages. If this page is removed, then for consistency so should those be. Spl237 (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

:: It's also charted in Austria, Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands. Richard3120 (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

:::{{u|Spl237}}, you've spent a lot of time discussing the chart positions etc., but why have you not added them, with their source next to them, in the article? Then it would be clear for everyone. Boleyn (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

::::Because that hasn't been done on any of the other CdeB album pages - the chart position details are on the main CdeB discography page (as indeed they are for this album) but they aren't on the pages for individual albums (none of which I wrote). I'm very keen on consistency (which is why I added this page in the first place), and simply copied the style, format and content of the other pages for CdeB albums. Spl237 (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

:::::This is an article people will look at to find out information about the album. This article has very little information about the album, including nothing which shows notability. There is actually more useful information for a reader in the artist's article. Our job is to make it easy for people to find information on the album. I've repeatedly pointed out to you that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't relevant, it sounds like they all need improving, whixh isn't strange - Wikipedia is a permanent work in progress. But this article offers not even an assertion of notability. Boleyn (talk) 05:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

::::::Right, so if I add those details with sources to this page, this discussion will be over and the page will no longer be marked for deletion? Because I really don't have time for this ongoing debate - I was simply trying to be helpful and improve consistency across CdeB's discography by adding a missing page which matched the format of the other relevant pages. I am beginning to wish I hadn't bothered. If rules are to be applied, then they should be applied consistently - clearly this requirement for chart positions was not applied when any of the other individual album pages were added, so I really don't understand why it is being insisted upon so heavily here. I will add the chart positions and sources to the page as you suggest, but beyond that, I really don't care enough to bother further - delete it if you want (but if that is the case, then the total lack of consistency in the application of the policy on notability would appear to me to be a problem.) Spl237 (talk) 06:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

:::::::{{u|Spl237}} Improving the article can help your argument, yes, but it's not a requirement or anything. It just aids in convincing others. Don't feel obligated though. Sergecross73 msg me 14:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. Very notable artist, arguably sufficient sigificant coverage, significant national chart placings. --Michig (talk) 08:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
• Keep per improvements. {{u|Jax 0677}}, would you consider withdrawing the nomination now it has been improved and notability has been asserted and backed by sources? Boleyn (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

:* Reply - Per WP:NALBUM, "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article". --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

::*{{u|Jax 0677}} - a helpful hint, since you keep citing that clause in your nominations without much success in convincing anyone - that application of NALBUMS isn't usually used for newer releases, its usually used for albums that have been out for a very long time and still have not seen any improvement. Its used on albums that are unlikely to ever be expanded. Something like, for example, Here We Go Again (SR-71 album) - because it's sat as an unsourced stub for over a decade. You keep trying to use it on albums from the last month/year - its far less convincing when used in that way, because coverage on the subject is still ongoing. The album came out less than a year ago, and charted in multiple countries, so people are less likely to believe that improvements are impossible or never coming. Sergecross73 msg me 14:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

::: Reply - {{ping|Sergecross73}}, WP:BURDEN. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

::::{{u|Jax 0677}} That doesn't make any sense. What exactly are you suggesting I have a burden to prove here? This comment didn't suggest the addition of any content or argument toward notability, it was an observation on why you're not persuading anyone with your application of the guidelines. Sergecross73 msg me 15:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

:::::* Reply - {{ping|Sergecross73}}, per WP:BURDEN, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Per {{tl|nn}}, "Please help to establish notability by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond its mere trivial mention". --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

::::::*Yes, I'm very aware of BURDEN conceptually, I just don't understand why you'd follow up a comment that wasn't about notability, with a statement about the burden of notability being placed on me. That has nothing to do with the comment I made. Sergecross73 msg me 15:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

:::::::* Reply - {{ping|Sergecross73}}, the policy does not say anything about whether an album is new or old. The burden to provide more than a track listing is on the writer who writes the material, or writes the article. There is a Personnel section in the article, so Here We Go Again (SR-71 album) is past a stub. My articles for Lies to Light the Way and The Young Souls are well referenced, and well past a stub. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

::::::::*Right, WP:NALBUMS does not say anything about article age. But my point is the part that reads "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography." Operative word here is "unlikely". You're not using it in cases where the article is unlikely to grow - new albums, recently released, by notable artists on record labels are not unlikely to grow. You'd know that if you did a proper follow-through of WP:BEFORE like you're supposed to too. Obviously, "unlikeliness" is a subjective concept, but come on, there's a reason that in these most recent three nominations of yours based around this approach - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A_Better_World_(album)&oldid=794371696 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brett_Eldredge_(album)&oldid=794352521 here], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Content_(Joywave_album)&oldid=794348195 here] are almost unanimously trending towards "Keep". You're clearly not doing something right here. Sergecross73 msg me 17:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• Keep - per charting in multiple countries. Sergecross73 msg me 14:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - WP:MUSTBESOURCES, WP:ITEXISTS, WP:ITSA, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, WP:WAX, WP:AON. The material/references need to be in the article and the album article needs to go beyond a track listing, especially one that has been around as long as this one has. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

:*This is very misleading. An editor above presented three sources about the subject, of which you have not addressed. And no, there is no requirement for the content to be present in the article. It only needs to be presented here, at the AFD discussion. It's helpful to add it to the article - it usually helps persuade people to keep articles - but it is not required in order to have an AFD close as keep. Sergecross73 msg me 15:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.