Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knowledge & Innocence

:{{la|Knowledge & Innocence}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Knowledge_%26_Innocence Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Knowledge & Innocence}})

I love this album, but it is not notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

: It was a redirect for over two years and an editor decided that it should have an article. Only a single source was added. I have the source—a brief entry in the encyclopedia. The entry for the album is part of the creator's (Terry Scott Taylor) article. It is one, long paragraph. It's 3/4 of a column of the work. It does not make the album sufficiently notable. The album did not sell well. It produced one single, a collaboration with Randy Stonehill, that did not chart. The material could easily be included in the creator's article and a redirect left. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

::How do you know how much it sold? I'm sorry - is Wikipedia running out of server space? why the rush to delete as much as possible? When Wikipedia first started, one of the folks running it told me that they would rather see Wikipedia grow and increase in it's number of articles - not shrink. They said if an article is not good enough, try to make it better before marking it for deletion. Is there some reason that vision changed? Now there seems to be a rush to delete as much as possible about certain topics (while leaving all kinds of garbage for others) Audiori (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

::: I was in the industry during this time. It didn't sell well. I have no sales figures to support my claim, but you don't have any to support that it reached the top of any sales chart, and that's the crux of that argument. Albums that top charts are considered notable, but there has to be a reference to support that.

::: While Wikipedia isn't running out of server space, that's not an issue either. It only lists notable subjects. In this case the subject is an album. I love the album. It got me to read Blake. But that does not make the album notable in Wikipedia's terms. Also see :WP:GNG and :WP:NALBUM.

::: There's no rush to delete it. The debate will go on for a while. The article was redirecting for over two years. If you want more time to work on the article, you could request that it be moved to your user space. When it's in "better shape" (supports the album's claim to notability) you can nominate to have it reviewed and moved back into main space.

::: It's not about the quality of the article, re: "good enough", it's about the subject's notability. You can't insert notability if none exists.

::: We are not trying to rush to delete "as much as possible about certain topics", we are removing articles that are not notable. If you have other "kinds of garbage" that you think should be deleted, I can explain whether it meets criteria or not, or you can nominate it for one of three types of deletion processes.

::: Since I've bought enough from Taylor and DA over the years, you have my email address. I give you permission to check your records. Search for my family name in your sales records, with and without the umlaut. I'd be glad to discuss it with you. I am an equal opportunity nominator. I have nominated to material for deletion from bands that are more well-known that this and many from bands less well known as well. Each article stands on its own merits. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

:::: This is what I'm talking about. I started creating articles on Wikipedia at the very start... wayyyy back at the very beginning when popular TV shows didn't even have articles. The folks running it told me personally at the time that since Wikipedia was not an encyclopedia and created with user content - it could be more than what was found in an encyclopedia. Somewhat obscure albums, movies and books could still have articles that would never be heard of elsewhere. What was considered notable at that time? Anything that was beyond maybe a hundred people knowing about it. If thousands knew of it all over a country (or at least tens of thousands all over the world, as is the case here) it could have an article. That's what was great about Wikipedia. Deleting everything that doesn't top a chart seems to be counterproductive to the point of Wikipeida. Audiori (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

::::: So you're saying that we should keep the material because it's been around for a decade? Ask Terry if he has his tuner from 2005. Just because he had one in 2005 doesn't mean he should still use it in 2014. Things change. We have codified what does and doesn't constitute a notable album. I linked you to it. The fact that you didn't know it was redirected for more than two years tells me you don't even care. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

:::::: My comments and questions were more about Wikipedia policy than this article in general. Is the standard that it has to top a chart? Do you realize how many albums on Wikipedia that have never topped a chart? Most albums in existence have never topped a chart. I know very few music fans that would tell you that every important album in history has topped a chart or won an award. That's meaningless to notability. Audiori (talk) 02:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

::::::: It's not a policy, it's a guideline. An I linked to the three notability guidelines: :WP:N, :WP:GNG and :WP:NALBUM. I never wrote "topped" it simply has to appear on a chart. And there are other criteria: numerous reviews from reliable sources is one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Redirect to artist. WP is definitely an encyclopedia, and its scope has definitely changed since its early days. There's nothing stopping anyone from expanding on this album's merits within the parent artist's article. I found no hits for this album (or phrase when paired with the artist) in multiple database and web searches, which follows that there is no significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) The topic is fine for redirecting, though, and can always spin out summary style. I already left a note on the nom's page, but these types of easy redirects should be settled on the article talk pages since outright deletion is out of the question. czar ♔ 22:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

:::"these types of easy redirects should be settled on the article talk pages since outright deletion is out of the question." - Wrong. Redirects are deletions, while merges are not. Redirects, when done lazily and sloppily, are extremely destructive, and can lead to hours of volunteer manhours and reusable information disappearing in an instant, with most editors unaware it was ever there in the first place. Earflaps (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep - User:Czar, User:Audiori, the extensive and reliable Mark Alan Powell source Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music specifically says that this artist's influence and importance is not to be judged by solo commerical success. And both Powell (200) and Sfetcu (2014) discuss in particular this first solo album in reference to the oft-remarked "Beatles-like" music of the artist, with Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music discussing individual songs. User:Walter Görlitz thank you for having launched an AFD [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Walter_G%C3%B6rlitz&diff=prev&oldid=631075217 as requested]. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

:: Walter noted that he had the source above, and that the album had little coverage in it. Indeed, based on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knowledge_%26_Innocence&diff=next&oldid=631080029 the quotations] put in the article, the legacy is much more the artist's than the album's. If this is the extent of the album's coverage, I'm not sure how one could argue that it's significant or sufficient for the general notability guideline (or, moreover, why keeping a nearly empty article with a dearth of sources makes more sense than redirection) czar ♔ 23:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

:::User:Czar, I'm slightly concerned about the discussion on Walter's Talk page where you are apparently advising him to blank and redirect albums without discussion, and then coming here to support AFD after advising blank and redirect. This discussion should be kept open long enough to get a broader set of views of editors not directly involved in blanking the article. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

:::: The entry in the EofCCM is not for the album but for the artist. The artist is notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

:::* That's a mischaracterization of my advice, which was to have the discussion outside of AfD and not to forego discussion altogether. It was a reminder that the D in AfD is for deletion and not discussion: AfD nominations that do not advocate for the outright deletion of an article can be closed as speedy keep #1. As almost all albums on Wikipedia have parent articles for the artist, it doesn't make sense to argue for their deletion via AfD when they qualify for redirection, so discuss on the talk page and do it yourself upon consensus. Your slight concern is unwarranted as I have no involvement in this article other than seeing it discussed beneath my conversation with Walter. Isn't that why it was brought here? I'm a third party and my review of the available sourcing is as objective as it is in every other AfD I review. czar ♔ 00:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• keep' - try to improve it before it is deleted. Audiori (talk) 02:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

---

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

---

• Keep - Wikipedia is both a serious encyclopedia and a compendium of popular culture. The former needs to be maintained with great diligence and high standards, the later derives its value from its expansiveness. Nothing would be gained by deletion here. Call it an WP:IAR keep if you wish — use common sense. Carrite (talk) 07:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

---

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

---

• Redirect back to Terry Scott Taylor. Here's the thing(s): it doesn't matter what you think Wikipedia should or shouldn't include; it doesn't matter how old an album is, or how successful its creator; it doesn't even really matter if the album topped the Billboard charts for a year. The guidelines for inclusion are the general notability guideline and, in this case, the guideline for albums. Without the significant coverage in reliable sources, it doesn't meet the bar, and should be redirected to the artistes article, same as for all other albums/singles in the same position. If the creator (/significant contributor) wants it userfied so they can work on finding and adding these sources, then have at it, but if not, then just redirect it. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment It actually does matter if it did top the Billboard charts, particularly if they're year-end charts. See :WP:NALBUM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Not in and of itself. A(n imaginary) situation whereby an album topped the charts but had no significant coverage anywhere would mean there wouldn't be enough information for a standalone article, so would result in a redirect being the most suitable course of action. Entirely hypothetical of course, because chart placings usually get you significant coverage. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 04:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep, Album seems to be notable although without significant mentions. My decision will be Keep for it.Shashanksinghvi334 (talk) 03:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• {{ping|Shashanksinghvi334}} On what grounds do you find it notable? You stated it does not have "significant mentions", which is the main issue. Without "significant mentions", it's not notable. Please clarify. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• Merge with no loss of information. Not enough coverage to be notable independently, but very notable within the context of the artist's history. Not a big article, no reason the prose and tracklisting can't snugly fit in the main bio and/or discography. Earflaps (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• Merge, userify, or redirect in that order. Sources borderline WP:GNG, so WP:SPINOUT. The BLP has sourcing issues, so this will aid that too. Widefox; talk 10:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
• If the decision is delete, feel free to userify to my user space. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

: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.