Talk:Painting With

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 November 2015. The result of the discussion was keep.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Contested deletion

KEEP. Album has been officially announced and played. ♦ BOHEMIAN ARCADE ♦ • Message me • My contributions 15:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... the album has been officially announced, and a title has been reported by various publications, albeit 'unconfirmed' by first-party sources, but that doesn't negate the validity of this article.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is "Painting With" the title of an article about an album called "Painting With Animal Collective"

Seriously do people think the album is going to be called "Painting With"?? Do we really need to wait to see if it's confirmed or not before removing this article?

Hi my name's Robert and my favourite Beatles album is their sophomore effort, "With". Nice, minimal title.121.98.177.217 (talk) 12:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should e-mail the band to say that they accidentally gave their album the wrong title. What a screw up!--Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a screenshot of someone's phone...121.98.188.67 (talk) 04:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And this is a photograph of linen.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should email the band to show them your cell phone pic and urge them to issue a statement that's actually usable and can be picked up by other sources to justify a Wikipedia article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also a good idea.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 07:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaaahhhhh, Ilovetopaint was right. Sorry! It's my own problem now.121.98.188.67 (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because the album was officially announced today. Simple as that. End of discussion. Bye!--MWill75 (talk) 12:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quietus Review Deletion

I really don't think the review from the Quietus (http://thequietus.com/articles/19709-the-lead-review-animal-collective-painting-with-review) should be mentioned in the reception section. Negative opinions on the album are already covered on the page and the Quietus review, while very entertaining, is an outlier review in how much it tears down the album and mocks the band. Having the review up on here especially the quote about it being "dogshit" seems somewhat unprofessional IMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliverjgw (talk • contribs) 00:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's logical that 'critical response' sections on albums should include positive, 'middle', and negative reviews. WP:BALASPS: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." The Quietus article is the only negative review, and as such, it's only one sentence. Calling an album dogshit is only an opinion. It would be no less valid than if they called it a gift from God.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying. My problem isn't w/ the representation of negative opinions on the record. I'm not really a fan myself. My problem is that some of the reviews represented in the article were poorly written IMO. I'm not really a fan of the pitchfork article picked to represent a middle review either. much preferred the tiny mix tapes and wire reviews which both said pretty much the same thing. On the subject of a negative review for the critical response section, I suppose the quietus review is the only overtly negative review I've seen of the album. Most reviews I've seen would either fall into the positive or middle categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliverjgw (talk • contribs) 06:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If Tiny Mix Tapes and The Wire "both said pretty much the same thing" as Pitchfork, then the paragraph does exactly what it's supposed to, which is to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" (WP:WEIGHT).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hocketing

Sorry to bother and not actually do it myself, but I thought I would suggest adding something about the album's heavy use of vocal hocketing. Thanks! Augustine Dream (talk) 01:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]