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 keep. No consensus to Delete this article, and a consensus that it has met notability. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Selection (Art Department album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Collection of reviews but no proof of notability or serious info about the album. Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 17:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• (1) This is a strong keep and the nomination is based on false reasons. The reviews are an indicator of notability, and I have no clue what you mean by "serious info." (2) OK. Banner, are you still upset about the Gordon Ramsay image? Are you seriously tracking whatever articles I create or edit because I triggered you about the picture? If so, that's unprofessional. and doing disruptive behavior to force a message or point on me is only making my life and the lives of other editors a living hell. Kind of odd how you're nominating this only hours after our talk page discussion. HumanxAnthro (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice when you talk about the content in stead of me. Attacking the nominator is not making your case stronger. The Banner talk 19:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I talked about the content in the first two sentences of my paragraph. (2) The rationale is blatantly false if you look at the article you nominateed (a "collection of reviews," professional ones that is, is coverage; that should debunk the nomination right there), and you're doing this only hours after our image debacle. If your behavior relates to the decision of this nomination, then it's a problem; that's not me making a WP:Personal attack, that's me calling out your WP:UNCIVIL debating tactics. HumanxAnthro (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the deal. I'll stop bothering you about the image if you withdraw this disruptive, bad-faith attack of a nomination. HumanxAnthro (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The Banner talk 19:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Banner, with all due respect, if you dismiss my arguments as "whining" in your edit summaries and give a false rational for deleting an article I created only a short time after our image discussion, that's pretty much a sign you're coming after me. Just please be open about it at the very least. HumanxAnthro (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please stick to the content instead of making a series of personal attacks? This is about an AfD-procedure, not about an unrelated picture. WP:AGF. The Banner talk 19:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If what I'm saying is coming across at that, I strongly apologize. But the evidence is making me have a hard time believing it is unrelated. I'm not angry; I'm not gonna report you or anything, and it's OK if I annoyed you a little by accident. I just want some openness; that's all. HumanxAnthro (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, a "collection of reviews" is exactly the type of sourcing that satisfies WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC for albums. If a band gets interviewed by Billboard because of the release of this album[1], then you have a pretty string indication that this is a notable record. A review on Allmusic[2] and 6 other reviews in notable publications are also included in the article, and not included yet are things like Mixmag discussing remixes for the album[3]. I have no idea if the reason for this nomination is as claimed by the article creator, but it sure looks like a very poor nomination, not matching the actual article at all. Fram (talk) 09:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reasoning is that there are two prior speedy-nominations and that the article hardly says anything about the album itself. To be exact: two sentences. No evidence that it hit the charts, no evidence that is certified gold anywhere, no evidence of awards, no evidence that it got significant airtime on tv or radio. Nothing. But yes, there is a mention on Billboard that the album is ready for pre-order now. The Banner talk 09:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the things you mention are required for notability (in general or of albums). Many genres get little or no airplay and won't chart, but have a relatively large and widespread following anyway, and get plenty of attention in the specialized press (not "specialized" as in some fanzine, these are reliable publications with relatively large circulations or readership). Have you actually looked at the Billboard link? It is not "a mention that it is ready for preorder now", that is the introduction of an interview starting with "Billboard caught up with White in Barcelona to discuss the duo's creative process on their sophomore album, and what inspired the conceptual departure from their beloved debut. Billboard: Where did you write and record Natural Selection? " Please don't dismiss sources which don't fit your narrative in such an unfair way. Fram (talk) 10:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • You call it unfair, I call it advertising. The Banner talk 11:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • So a review of a movie or an interview with the director, which states "film X, out in cinemas next week", is "advertising" and doesn't count towards notability? Right... Fram (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, so Banner's in this for real. I don't know if you know this, but... every source is "advertising" any notable topic, from the big Lady Gaga and Ariana Grandes to the Death Grips acts. Every publication ever publishes their pieces (interviews, positive reviews, "analytical esasys," etc.) cause they're paid to do so to promote not just other musicians but also artists, activists, filmmakers, some spoiled rich kid born into an elite family vlogging on social media, or get into a trendy or controversial topic, you name it... They still cover the topic because a lot or a fair amount of their target audiences are interested in them, cause their revenue and profit under capitalism depends on high reader count.... that's kind of how topics get their notability, all those publications profiting off exposing thosee topics and acts. HumanxAnthro (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meets WP:NALBUM, has multiple reviews, article reflects this. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Κeep. We have about a dozen reviews in media that almost all have their own Wikipedia article, i.e. they're notable. This satisfies WP:NALBUM. -The Gnome (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is possible, but this orphan says hardly anything about the album itself. The Banner talk 11:57, 12 July 2020 (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.