This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles
Forever Music is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
@Alexandermcnabb along with what is present in the article already, there is also coverage from The Fader and BrooklynVegan, both reliable sources I've used plenty of times without issues (The Fader even has an entry at WP:RSMUSIC). If you ask me that's plenty enough to keep the article. Perhaps those two should be added as external links or something of the sort. QuietHere (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I'm not suggesting deleting it, but the guidelines for recordings are quite stringent: WP:NALBUM tell us to be notable a recording has to have been, "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it... such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries except for... any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about the recording, and all advertising that mentions the recording, including manufacturers' advertising.
OR
The recording has appeared on any country's national music chart.
The recording has been certified gold or higher in at least one country.
The recording has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award."
As it stands, I don't think the article meets that standard. The tag is there to encourage more eyes, not as an insult or challenge. If you have more sources that demonstrate this recording is notable, it'd be good to add 'em in - a chart position, for instance, is a shoe-in for notability. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't taking it as an insult, I was just responding to your assessment of the situation with an explanation of my own position regarding the article. Perhaps removing them was premature and I shouldn't've done that part, but I stand by what I said that I think this clears NALBUM based on the articles I've presented. I'll look into charting information (though relying on charts alone for a "shoe-in for notability" is questionable if you ask me) and see what else I can add, though I doubt there'll be much of that for a self-released album from a not-so-well-known (as far as I can tell) artist. QuietHere (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify that comment about charts, I'd like to point to this discussion and the linked AFDs as examples of a recent incident where charting, no matter how small, was used as an excuse to save weak articles despite a clear disagreement with that position, including specific phrasing on the NALBUM page. It's things like this that make me wary of this "jump straight to the charts" attitude; I'm not saying charting shouldn't be a criteria for notability, but it alone clearly doesn't make notability if you ask me (and, again, those other editors and the NALBUM page itself), so when I see phrasing like "shoe-in" my skeptic alarms starts blaring. QuietHere (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=logo}
