Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wired (Hugh Cornwell album)

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The result was Nomination withdrawn as only 1 delete vote and article improvement.. LibStar (talk) 07:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wired (Hugh Cornwell album)

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

fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. gnews only refers to passing mentions rather than indepth mentions. [1] no evidence of charting. LibStar (talk) 06:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 17:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 17:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NALBUM.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 18:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. AllMusic didn't write a review, but they did give the US version of this (First Bus To Babylon) a four star rating. BlueThird (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It might not be strictly appropriate to bundle this with other Cornwell albums that are being considered for deletion, but they should surely be considered together and within the wider context of Cornwell's notability. There's an earlier AfD for Beyond Elysian Fields. BlueThird (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I considered bundling but think that each album can be assessed on its merits. I may do this for future AfDs. LibStar (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a Hugh Cornwell discography. May not merit a standalone article but there is information here than should be preserved in a discography page.--Michig (talk) 05:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cornwell is undoubtedly notable; Wired almost certainly had enough coverage in the UK music press to earn notability in its own right, but we're talking about 1993, when the internet was far leaner. But even if someone heads to the library for a few days and proves to everyone's satisfaction that Wired wasn't reviewed in any significant part of the music press at the time and fails notability in every other way, there's still the four-star rating for the US version of the album at AllMusic, as noted above, and WP:OSE still applies, as discussed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueThird (talk • contribs) 07:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it's purely a rating not a review. don't see how it meets WP:NALBUMS. All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject LibStar (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly a major release from a notable artist, lack of proper sourcing doesn't stop this clearly being the case. Bienfuxia (talk) 05:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

major releases must still meet WP:NALBUMS, you have failed to explain how this criterion is met. LibStar (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Major releases will by definition meet WP:NALBUMS, as the word 'major' implies coverage. BUT this is an album from before the days of the internet, the coverage will have been in magazines / newspapers at the time, and nobody can be bothered to dig it out and source it properly. No reason to delete it. Bienfuxia (talk) 11:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the internet existed in 1993. Secondly gnews archives include most major newspaper particularly English language ones since 1950. See WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it existed in 1993, but magazines didn't post articles until often 2000 or later. Don't know why I'm having to clarify this in detail as it's so obvious, but here we are. Yes, it's possible that you can get sources from gnews archives, why not have a go instead of assuming that there are none there? And don't link me to some deletionist essay as if it's policy. It's not my responsibility to save this article, if you really want it deleted so badly then it's up to you to make your case properly, end of story. Bienfuxia (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)There was barely anything on the internet in 1993. The Google News archive only contains a fraction of British news articles, and barely any from the music press of the time. The vast majority of the music press of that era, many of which would have reviewed these albums, cannot be found at all online. People need to start realizing that sources not showing up on Google is a vastly different matter to sources not existing.--Michig (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Google News has it, the only time the NME (weekly music paper, established 1952) wrote about Elvis Presley was on the occasion of Alice Cooper telling the Daily Mirror about the time Elvis kicked a gun out of Cooper's hand and then pinned him to the ground by the neck, apparently with Linda Lovelace and Liza Minnelli watching. For myself, I'm inclined to think that's an indication of how utterly lacking Google News is, rather than an accurate summary of the NME's coverage of Presley. By the same token, The Stranglers have only been mentioned once in NME (in passing, less than a week ago) and Cornwell not at all, when the reality is that they would both have been mentioned hundreds of times. So far as I can work out, Google News doesn't even acknowledge the existence of Q, Mojo, Select, Vox, Sounds etc etc. It quite clearly has very significant weaknesses when it comes to the music press, to the point where it can't be relied upon in any meaningful way. The websites for these magazines and papers, where they still exist, aren't necessarily helpful either: for economic reasons, their content is often only a very small portion of what they put in their print editions. A search on Mojo's website suggests that they've only covered The Stranglers once, which is also extremely unlikely. Citing Google News as an argument for deletion, in this case, is unhelpful. We're not talking here about the solo work of the lead singer from an unknown garage band, for which significant coverage outside the internet is unlikely, but the solo work of someone who sang on something like twenty Top 40 hits, in a notorious band with extensive coverage in the music press and the mainstream media. Given all that, it's far more likely that sufficient coverage exists than that it doesn't. There's no case for deletion. BlueThird (talk) 04:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

again there is no question this artist is notable but it does not automatically follow that his albums is notable. Real shame about your search because it is flawed, you should have used google news archive which yields 148 hits [news.google.com/archivesearch?q=elvis+presley+source%3Anme&btnG=Search+Archives&scoring=a]. LibStar (talk) 06:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

148 is still a tiny amount for Elvis. Try searching for an individual Elvis album and you'll see how ridiculous it is. The NME archive on Google News only goes back to the year 2000, seven years after this album was released. Just answer this please - Are you saying you don't think this album received coverage at the time? Bienfuxia (talk) 08:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that is only NME. Elvis would get a lot more in newspapers as well. Despite this AfD existing since 31 May not one person has provided any evidence of indepth third party coverage. The onus is on those wanting to keep an unreferenced article to find sources, even if offline. Arguments like the artist is notable therefore his album is does not cut it. Just answer this please - have you find evidence of indepth coverage? LibStar (talk) 08:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Always happy to listen and learn: an archive search would undoubtedly have been a better idea, even if it wouldn't have made any difference to the substance of my argument. An archive search on Hugh Cornwell in the NME gives nothing on him before 1998. The map, quite clearly, is not the terrain. From WP:BEFORE: "Before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist." As established, a Google News search clearly isn't up to the task. My personal view is that in this case, in which no one is arguing that Cornwell himself isn't notable, a "good-faith attempt" by any editor would involve checking print editions of the UK music press from the time, where – given the extent of Cornwall's notability – sufficient coverage would almost certainly be found. Having neither the physical resources nor the time to do that myself, I have absolutely no problem leaving the article where it is. As I understand it, the onus is, in fact, on someone wanting to delete an article to establish a consensus that deleting it is in the best interests of Wikipedia. Please correct me if I'm wrong. BlueThird (talk) 03:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wired was released in both the United Kingdom and the United States, with references in Allmusic, Billboard and MTV. Dan arndt (talk) 08:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for adding sources, but almost all are seem mere listings or 1 line mentions of the album and not indepth coverage. this one is a bit more but is it a reliable source. it appears to be a blog? LibStar (talk) 10:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the article is an legitimate interview with Hugh Cornwell, relating to events occurring during the recording of the album. I have located a number of similar interviews and will be adding them to the article. It is however becoming clearer that this is a notable article.Dan arndt (talk) 10:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not the biggest music mag in the world, admittedly, but certainly more than just a blog. From their home page: "We are a printed fanzine dedicated to the underground music scene and new music in general and this is our website. We are a quarterly publication." BlueThird (talk) 03:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article is sufficiently referenced and re-formatted to justify its retention. Dan arndt (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Even if individual notability of this album was in debate, let's not lose site of how Hugh Cornwell's article is structured and that each of his other albums also have separate articles, deletion would upset a reasonable organization structure and does not benefit the project, in my view.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:21, 17 June 2011 (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.