Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sinking (album)

Sinking (album)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Album that never reached the top 100, passes no notability guidelines. Redditaddict6 9 10:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 13:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 13:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep No evidence of notability for the album found in search. The UK album chart normally only gives Top 100 anyway, so charting over 100 is not considered significant. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Hzh (talk) 11:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vote changed as Richard3120 had found additional reviews that appear to show notability (I can't check the sources, but I'm trusting the are legitimate full reviews). Hzh (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzh: yes, they are full reviews, not just two lines as part of a quick round-up along with a dozen other albums. Obviously you'll have to take my word for it, but I've added full details of the references, down to the page number, so that anyone who gets their hands on a copy of these music magazines can check the reviews and the quotes taken from them. The NME review in particular is quite a bit longer than the brief quotes I've extracted from it. Richard3120 (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I was surprised that this album didn't chart, given that it contains the group's two biggest hit singles, but the Aloof were a reasonably well known group on the mid-90s dance scene in the UK, and this album was their high point – the two hit singles had a fair bit of airplay on BBC Radio 1's specialist music programmes. I was confident that I would find reviews of this album, given that the group wasn't unknown, and I've added reviews from Melody Maker, NME and Q, plus an interview with them from Muzik magazine. I think this should be enough to pass WP:NALBUM as a stub article, and I would think there is probably more out there in the specialist music magazines of the time such as Mixmag and DJ Mag, which are not available online. In light of the information I have added, I don't know whether Hzh would like to reassess his/her vote. Richard3120 (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good work finding the reviews. I would discount the AllMusic one as it is too short (I had already seen it before), as I can't check the others, if they are full reviews, then I'd be happy to change my vote. Hzh (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The album may not have sold loads of copies at the time but as mentioned the band were part of the UK dance scene and the album was critically acclaimed. Not everyone wants to read about Thriller or Sgt. Pepper! The recent additions have brought the article to a higher standard. --Geach (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The album contains a UK top 30 single, was critically-acclaimed, has multiple references, and charted within the UK top 200 albums chart as evidenced here - http://www.zobbel.de/cluk/CLUK_A.HTM . The US Billboard chart extends to a top 200, and albums charting on it, regardless of position, are generally considered notable. The UK is one of the largest music markets in the world, therefore reaching their chart is notable.Nqr9 (talk) 00:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While there may be argument for keeping, the chart is not one of them. WP:NALBUMS criteria requires that the chart to be the "country's national music chart", and in UK that is the Official Charts Company which normally lists only the top 100. Argument using Billboard is irrelevant. Hzh (talk) 10:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]