Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top Room at the Zoo
=[[Top Room at the Zoo]]=
:{{la|Top Room at the Zoo}} – (
:({{Find sources|Top Room at the Zoo}})
X-factor UK is being televised and encouraging a rash of articles about the contestants before they achieve independent notability. This case is unusual, because the article is about a 2011 self-published album by a current X-Factor contestant, released for download 12 months before anyone knew of her. It gets several recent mentions in the press, because it had to be removed from I-Tunes. Maybe the best (and only) mention in any depth is [http://www.nowmagazine.co.uk/tv-news/539481/x-factor-finalist-lucy-spraggan-most-of-my-songs-are-about-the-older-woman-i-fell-for-in-america this recent article]. The track 'Last Night' has probably had significantly more coverage because it was sung during the audition stage of X-factor. I would argue that the album, in comparison, has been largely unnoticed. Does not meet WP:NMUSIC criteria. Sionk (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Strong Keep: It does meet WP:NMUSIC criteria. The album has peaked to number 22 on the UK Albums Chart and number 72 on the Irish Albums Chart and does meet WP:NMUSIC. The album has also received coverage. Greenock125 (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Strong Keep: This is a charting album which would have done even better, had it not been deleted: [http://www.officialcharts.com/chart-news/x-factor-star-lucy-spraggan-scores-second-biggest-selling-track-this-week-so-far-1552/ "Spraggan’s independently released 2011 album, Top Room At The Zoo...is also the sixth biggest selling album of the week"] Gnu andrew (talk) 06:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
::So where's the evidence of strong coverage to back up the 'strong keep's? Charting isn't sufficient in itself to pass WP:NMUSIC. Sionk (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
:::i prefer seeing the coverage, personally, but that's not what the guideline says. 86.44.49.108 (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
::::Albums and recordings need to meet WP:GNG. Neither of the 'strong keeps' (one of whom is the author) make any argument based on WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 09:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::Though placed in reply, that comment is entirely unconnected to mine. Hence I can't see that addressing it would lead to you dealing with either that reply or my original one. 86.44.49.108 (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::In that case, I'm not sure what point you were making either. Like you say, best leave it. Sionk (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. "Strong" is too strong for me, but I do believe enough coverage exists on the album [http://www.musicweek.com/news/read/lucy-spraggan-album-removed-from-itunes/051530][http://www.musicweek.com/news/read/lucy-spraggan-album-falls-off-amazon/051557][http://www.allmusic.com/album/top-room-at-the-zoo-mw0002417628], combined with the chart info, to warrant an article. Gongshow Talk 20:09, 18 October 2012 (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.