Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broken (Memphis May Fire album)

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Broken (Memphis May Fire album)}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Broken_(Memphis_May_Fire_album) Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Broken (Memphis May Fire album)}})

Procedural nomination: Please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 23#Broken (Memphis May Fire album) for further information. Steel1943 (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

::Pinging participants of the previous discussion. {{Ping|Jax 0677|Walter Görlitz|Ibbus93|Thryduulf}} You have been pinged. Steel1943 (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - The lead single is talked about in two of the references, and there are reviews [http://www.deadpress.co.uk/album-review-memphis-may-fire-broken/ here], [https://crypticrock.com/memphis-may-fire-broken-album-review/ here], [https://newnoisemagazine.com/review-memphis-may-fire-broken/ here], [https://www.upsetmagazine.com/reviews/memphis-may-fire-broken here], [https://killyourstereo.com/reviews/1104646/memphis-may-fire-broken/ here] and [https://rocknloadmag.com/album-review/memphis-may-fire-broken-album-review/ here]. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

:* Comment - If the article can not be kept, it should be merged. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

::* I would agree to merging the content into a one-paragraph section in the band's article (as that's what most of the independent sources are giving it). That makes perfect sense. If a redirect is the solution, the redirect could point to that section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• Delete There have been a total of 12 references supplied to date and I cannot find more. To meet :WP:GNG the album has to have 1) significant coverage 2) in reliable sources 3) that are independent of the subject. The following are brief, :WP:ROUTINE coverage http://bringthenoise.com/blog/qa-matty-mullins-talks-new-memphis-may-fire http://bringthenoise.com/blog/the-noise-presents-atreyus-in-our-wake-tour-with http://loudwire.com/memphis-may-fire-broken-album-the-old-me-single/ https://www.altpress.com/news/memphis-may-fire-broken-album-old-me-song/ http://www.metalsucks.net/2018/08/27/atreyu-announce-tour-with-memphis-may-fire-and-ice-nine-kills/ https://www.facebook.com/revolvermag/videos/506190199881714/ while https://www.allmusic.com/album/broken-mw0003211617/releases is just a database entry: no review or anything significant. The following is not a reliable source https://rateyourmusic.com/release/album/memphis-may-fire/broken.p/ The following are not independent of the subject https://open.spotify.com/album/6OjdYx9U5k0Tex2SAKyDSh https://twitter.com/memphismayfire/status/1042217362978754567. In short it fails GNG. It in no way meets :WP:NALBUM either. A redirect is not an option since it went through RfD and the decision was that it should be restored it, so it's clear that they do not think it should be a redirect and they would not discuss the lack of sources. No double-jeopardy. As for the "notable single" notability is :WP:NOTINHERITED so the single can have an article, but there are no sources for the album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

:* Comment - {{yo|Walter Gorlitz}}, if "The following are independent of the subject", what exactly is the problem? The lead single is a part of the album. If the article can not be kept, it should be merged as a plausible search term. I brought it to WP:RFD because there was a dispute about whether it should be a redirect or an article. I did not put deletion of the history on the table, which I believe should not happen in this case. "Double jeopardy" is irrelevant in this particular case. Have you read any of the reviews that I posted above? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - There is no reason to redirect to the band or to delete altogether. Both nominations may have been based on the article's current sourcing, rather than what it could be per the WP:NEXIST standard. Jax (above) has found plenty of worthy reviews in that genre's usual publications. There was also advance media notice for the album before its release, indicting widespread interest in the band and any new product from them. The article already has a couple such announcements, I also found some in the generally reliable Loudwire [http://loudwire.com/memphis-may-fire-broken-album-the-old-me-single/] and Blabbermouth [http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/memphis-may-fire-to-release-broken-album-in-november-the-old-me-single-available/]. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• {{ping|doomsdayer520}} There is a reason to delete or redirect. The reasons given were based on many sources. Please read what is written before you make inaccurate statements. Your new source, http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/memphis-may-fire-to-release-broken-album-in-november-the-old-me-single-available/, is brief coverage that is ROUTINE. Can you find either significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, or other indications that the album itself is notable? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

:::Sign your comments then read WP:BLUDGEON and WP:AGF. And "independent of the subject" means not written by the band. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

::::* Reply - {{yo|Walter Gorlitz}}, "Have you read any of the reviews that I posted above"? "If The following are independent of the subject, what exactly is the problem"? --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

:::::* "Independent of the subject" does not mean "not written by the band" exclusively. It means not paid for by the band, or their record company or anyone associated with the band. However, the Tweets, etc. are the only ones I categorized that way. Jax, I looked at the reviews of the song, but did not find significant coverage of the albums there. Was there any? What exactly do they have to say about the album itself that you think constitutes significant coverage? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

::::::* Reply - You said above that "The following are independent of the subject" regarding the Spotify and Facebook articles. It is difficult to talk about an album without talking about the songs, and if the 6 reviews that I mentioned above talk about most of the songs, they are effectively talking about the album. I am not going to paste the whole review in here, so please tell me what about the six reviews that I posted at 17:03 on 30 November 2018 make them not acceptable? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

:::::::* Facepalm! Thanks for the clarification. I also moved the Facebook link up to the short entry section. I looked at the reviews this time and I'll have to look deeper. I'll take your word if you claim they're all RSes. They would qualify as SC from RSes if that's the case, and I would change my survey if that's the case. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• Keep: I think that the album deserves an article. The sources has been criticized but there are new reviews and articles about the record coming from [https://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/78414/Memphis-May-Fire-Broken/ Sputnikmusic] and [http://www.deadpress.co.uk/album-review-memphis-may-fire-broken/ Deadpress], totally reliable sources. Ibbus93 (talk) 11:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• https://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/78414/Memphis-May-Fire-Broken/ is a user review! http://www.deadpress.co.uk/album-review-memphis-may-fire-broken/ is written by Damon Taylor who is listed as [http://www.deadpress.co.uk/staff/ staff], but it's currently not considered a reliable source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Deadpress is totally reliable. This discussion is garbage, how can you define a source not reliable because of a Google Chrome warning? Probably there was a problem with HTTPS. Since last versions, if the site doens't run on HTTPS, Google Chrome told you that the website is not safe and right now Deadpress doens't run on HTTPS. Ibbus93 (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Good point. You should raise it at :WP:RSN. Until that decision changes though, it is categorized as not reliable. That it doesn't allow for a secure connection is problematic for different reasons. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• KEEP - If WP:RSN says something clearly dumb (i.e., a source is found unreliable because of a Google Chrome warning) then we can use our common sense and not follow the discussion there. There is no reason to open a new RfC simply to dismiss the previous one - WP:RSN is just a comments space open to all editors and most discussions there aren't closed by an admin (the one were discussing wasn't), so a discussion here is equally as valid as one there. No valid reasoning was given for finding Deadpress to be non-RS. It appears to have professional staff and thus qualifies as a WP:NEWSORG in the music field. That and [https://www.revolvermag.com/music/panic-attacks-pomade-how-memphis-may-fire-singer-embraces-beauty-brokenness this piece in Revolver] means that the album clearly has WP:SIGCOV in two reliable sources, and as such meets WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• Passing mention in Revolver not significant coverage, but with a few more passing mentions we may get to GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

:::Passing mention? They talk about it for three paragraphs. The definition of significant coverage is that it "addresses the topic directly and in detail". In the Revolver article we are told the following information about Broken: 1) The central theme of the album ("We are all broken people because life is not perfect"), 2) The lead single from the album ("The Old Me.") and details of how the video for it was shot, 3)The musical style ("Rock heavy"). Clearly WP:SIGCOV. FOARP (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

:::: Are you reading the same piece. I see that they talk about brokenness, mention the album's "central themes" and a video for the single but don't really talk about the album itself. What are the tracks? Who's the producer? When and where was it recorded? I don't know much more about the album after reading that piece than I did before I read it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

::::: WP:SIGCOV merely requires that the subject be discussed “directly” (it is repeatedly mentioned by name and various aspects of it discussed) and “in detail” (I.e., details of it are discussed - the theme, musical style, inspiration, the lead single from the album and the making of the video for it). This is clearly not a drive-by mention whilst discussing something else and it provides exactly the kind of detail that an article can be based on. The fact that you can think of details that aren’t there is immaterial - not everything that you might want to know about an album can be sourced. FOARP (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

:::::: No. You're missing a lot in that part. I asked those specific questions because we are to use "no original research is needed to extract the content" and so without track listings, etc., and yes, everything that I asked about an album can be sourced. That's different than making a wish list and saying it can't be sourced. I'm not asking what the band ate after vocal sessions for the second track. I'm not asking about what type of vehicle they used to arrive at the studio. I'm asking whether basic information can be sourced. It cannot be. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

:::::: Sorry, I think you're missing the point of "no original research required to extract the content". That's not "no original research to extract the content I wish to find". That's "no original research is needed to extract the content of the article" - you are not having to guess or use your own knowledge to infer what the reference tells you about the subject. Whether or not a track listing is available for an album is immaterial since it is not an absolutely necessary part of an article about an album. Ditto producer and other details you mentioned. The article merely needs to be able to tell you something relevant about the album, and the Revolver article supplies those. FOARP (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

:::::: Sorry, I think you're missing the point. This is not significant coverage. It's one paragraph in a fluff piece. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

:::::::One para? I count three:

:::::::"Mullins explores his experiences and struggles with anxiety and depression on Memphis May Fire's latest album, the diverse and rock-heavy Broken. "We are all broken people because life is not perfect," the singer points out of one of the album's central themes. "There's beauty in that brokenness because scar tissue is stronger than skin. We grow and become better versions of ourselves having gone through the worst times in life."

:::::::The narrative thread of fighting one's demons — and the messiness that goes along with it — is also carried through to the action-packed, violent and bloody video for Broken's lead single "The Old Me." The Marvel-sized clip required 36 hours of filming all throughout a freezing cold night in Santa Clarita, California, special effects makeup to create a stunt double of Mullins and a fight coordinator from the Fast and the Furious movies to make that believable punches were being thrown. Mullins describes the song and video as a "me vs. me" concept that symbolizes the duality that exists inside him, and at-times brutal fight between his anxious and non-anxious states.

:::::::Revolver recently caught up with the frontman for a candid and far-reaching conversation about his mental-health issues and EMDR therapy, Broken's message of hope and understanding, the loss of We Came As Romans Kyle Pavone, as well as Mullins' On Point Pomade grooming product business and much more."

:::::::(references to the album highlighted in bold) FOARP (talk) 10:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

:::::::: Only the third actually says anything about the album. You know, italics are not used for pull quotes either. Read what I wrote above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 11:57, 17 December 2018 (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.