Talk:If It Were You, We'd Never Leave

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 July 2018. The result of the discussion was keep.

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

Electronic music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notability

@Hayman30: There's like tons of sources about this album. Why do you think it may not be notable? The editor whose username is Z0 09:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] The editor whose username is Z0 09:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lmao the "tons of sources" you're talking about are barely reliable, except for CoS, Complex and Dancing Astronaut. Hayman30 (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have no evidence they're unreliable. Just 3 of these sources are usually enough to keep an article at AFD. Adding the charts make it more than sufficient to pass the notability criteria. The editor whose username is Z0 09:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Um, EDMTunes and The 405 are obviously blogs, and at least two of use Wordpress templates, their reliability is questionable. You have no evidence they're reliable either, especially considering your inability to identify reliable sources as noted by Snowflake91 here. Chart positions only indicates that the album may be notable, not that it is notable, so it does not "make it more than sufficient to pass the notability criteria". The fact that it only charted on component charts in the US and did not appear on any other major national chart also indicates that it may not be notable, especially since the album came out way back in 2013. Hayman30 (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The part where it says "may be notable, not that it is notable" applies to WP:NSONGS not WP:NALBUMS as evidently it's not written there. There exists at least 3 reliable sources as you said (CoS, Complex, Dancing Astronaut); these are sufficient to meet the notability criteria. The component charts are acceptable per WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS, hence meeting the criterion. There may be more in books since this person has been around for a long time and has had unusual sources write about him. The editor whose username is Z0 10:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's written there. "Specific to recordings, a recording may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria". Having a mere three sources does not indicate significant coverage or establish notability. The Complex article isn't even an album review and heavily cites an interview by another publication. Charting on one or two component charts does not automatically make the album notable, not to mention it only charted in one country, it's not the matter of whether it's acceptable to include in the charts section or not. Why not just leave the tag as is while you go and find the sources you need? Whether the album is notable is undeniably uncertain and I'm not trying redirect or nominate this for deletion or anything. The tag I placed merely suggests that the album may not be notable, which is true for now. Hayman30 (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the bigger picture, bro. "An album may be notable if it has charted on a national music chart" is for articles that don't pass the WP:GNG, each of these guidelines is worded accurately for their own topic. This album easily passes the WP:GNG with all those sources above, the charts are just a bonus. The editor whose username is Z0 10:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging album editors @Sergecross73: @Mburrell: @Walter Görlitz: for input on whether notability for this album has been established or not. The editor whose username is Z0 10:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that? Those criteria are specific to recordings not only for topics that do not pass GNG. Passing GNG doesn't mean the album is definitely notable enough to have its own article. I was merely suggesting that the album may not be notable according to the aforementioned specific notability criteria for recordings, which is true considering this album did not receive significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Hayman30 (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N states either the GNG or SSG (NALBUMS) needs to be passed for a subject to merit an article. The album passes the GNG, thus merits an article and is notable by Wikipedia definition. Notability is not temporary so once it has significant coverage it cannot simply lose notability (WP:NOTTEMPORARY). I've pointed out above there is significant coverage and if you think there isn't you can take it to AFD (per Serge's suggestion below). It is pointless to put a tag on a newly-created album page (if someone else created the page you probably wouldn't have) that has multiple reliable sources and charts, just to make a point. The notability tag is used for poorly sourced articles, of which the notability is not clear and would be a great deletion candidate, but that is not the case here. The editor whose username is Z0 13:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Three does not constitute "multiple" imo. Passing GNG does not mean the album is notable, it only "creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article". That means the topic is not definitely notable because it passes GNG. I don't think the tag is only targeted at poorly sourced articles, and to be honest, there are already two unsourced genres on this page, quite your style. Hayman30 (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple by definition means "more than 1" though. Yes, it does and Wikipedia is based on assumptions. Wikipedia assumes that notability is demonstrated by significant coverage but it cannot guarantee the notability of something. {{Notability}} states that "add this template to the top of any page whose article subject is, in your judgment, reasonably likely to be non-notable (not the sort of subject that Wikipedia ought to have an article about)". Do you reasonably believe this album is non-notable despite there being multiple reliable sources such as Complex, Consequence of Sound, Dancing Astronaut, etc, in addition to the multiple component charts? This is just a tag though, but it makes the article look terrible and there are tons of worse album pages that don't have it. The editor whose username is Z0 14:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow we're gonna bring in some definitions from the dictionary now? Two is more than one so an topic with two reliable sources is definitely notable. Great. It's impossible for you to truly think "multiple" merely means "just over two" on Wikipedia, you're just arguing for the sake of it. I don't believe this album is non-notable, I believe that it is likely to be non-notable. I don't think there are enough reliable sources to warrant an article, and these chart positions do not contribute much in establishing notability. These are non-major charts in a single country, and the album was out since 2013. Funny how you brought up the "this is not fair!!! why my article is tagged when there are worse articles out there that aren't tagged!??" argument. Just because other pages aren't tagged doesn't mean your article shouldn't be tagged, you're saying this as if you expect to to patrol album articles all day long and tag every single one of them that isn't notable, that just isn't possible. Other stuff exists is rarely a valid argument. Hayman30 (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Usually 3 sources and a charting position is enough to make a reasonable argument towards notability. Tags like that aren't meant to just hang over articles for eternity as a "badge of shame" or anything, (I think there's a Wikipedia essay about that somewhere out there) so if there's a dispute on whether or not its appropriate, I'd recommend going to AFD to settle it. (If an article survives an AFD, then then the notability tag should certainly not be on there.) On a related note, I did a quick source check, and found this Vibe interview. Because it's an interview, it may not help with notability arguments, but it's still a pretty mainstream RS still can be used to help flesh out the article a bit, which in turn could help avoid a "merge" conclusion. Sergecross73 msg me 12:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed and the tag shouldn't be there as Hayman30 should have taken it to the talk page instead of reverting after the first time per WP:BRD. He boldly added the tag and was reverted so the talk page is where he should have gone to. The editor whose username is Z0 13:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree with Hayman30 on this, the eight sources you provided don't seem to meet RS, but I have not dug into them in any detail. You should add what you can glean from them or take them to WP:RSN if you want to avoid challenges because of them. Better yet, show that they have editorial policy or an editorial board and then they can be founded as reliable sources as they all have bylines. That would help if it is taken to an AfD. Walter Görlitz (talk)

"Closing Act" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Closing Act. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 2#Closing Act until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jalen Folf (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]