- 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 delete. With the exception of the article's creator, unanimous consensus that this doesn't meet our requirements for reliable sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Live in Flint
- Live in Flint ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable album. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 19:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 19:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- I find the attitude by the 'person' deleting my work to be reprehensible and vandalism at that. The fact that someone else has joined in to attack my very blatant words expressed about my unhappiness with the a for mentioned person's vandalism, is indicative of a USA biased attitude on this site. You need to change that attitude quickly. Notable in the USA means nothing. If I put up work solely based out of Australia, then you say thank you, not mess with it. How dare either of you have the attitude you have. How dare anyone on here delete work by others, with a proper debate, just at their whim.
Nuro Dragonfly (
talk) 20:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of the history between you too, but the article is little more than a track listing, and the sources listed aren't reliable, so hounding or not, this is at least a valid nomination, unless there's some large failure of WP:BEFORE I'm missing... Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Article is little more than a tracklist, sources are unreliable and/or violating WP:USERG. I'd be happy to reconsider should someone dig up some better sources, but live albums like this often don't get much in the way of coverage that would help meet the WP:GNG, which the article certainly doesn't now... Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- This 'person' just started deleting my work. Thats not acceptable. For any reason. By anyone. As for the three Clutch albums that are part of this whole mess, they are all live albums which I've been meaning to add info and cite's. Until this 'person' arbitrarily vandalised my work. Other than that I was happy for any reviews to be conducted, and I am looking for better, reliable, source material, but for a concert so long ago it's not easy. I have a very serious problem with the attitude of 'Editors' deleting work by others without such a proper course of review. So I will continue with my research.. Nuro Dragonfly ( talk) 21:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment - I'm on the fence here. The album looks to have been on a top chart in Australia (see here), but I'm not sure of the reliability of this source. It appears to have some reviews and in-depth coverage by secondary sources ( [1], [2], [3]), But I'm not finding enough in-depth coverage to assert that this satisfies WP:GNG (which is also a requirement for WP:NMUSIC). I do see many sites listing the album and its tracks, but nothing about its coverage in-depth. I'm going to present what I found, keep an eye on this page, and see what others come up with. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 22:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Added "Delete" vote; see below.
~Oshwah~
(talk)
(contribs) 07:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- I checked those cite's and the first is one of my home countries independent Album Chart review sites, the second is from the year after the concert (and imo pretty good source) and the third is of a review by a 'fan site', so to speak, about seeing them years after hearing the album in question...I'll keep searching and watching Nuro Dragonfly ( talk) 22:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if those sources help the article meet the WP:GNG though, they're not really what Wikipedia usually would deem reliable. "The Obelisk" (link 2) is just the self-published blogging of one person who doesn't do it professionally or for a living (See About Page.) "Pro-Rock" (link 3) is just a directory/tracklist, no actual prose. Even "Ninehertz" (link 1) while probably the closest to acceptable, is pretty iffy. They do actually have an "About Us" page (see here) but it doesn't say much for their credentials. For instance, the article writer, written merely by "Pete" with a Leslie Nielsen picture as his photo, only credential listed seems to be... being a locksmith? If that's really all that's out there, then I think it really just needs to be mentioned in the band's article or discography page. Sergecross73 msg me 17:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Added "Delete" vote; see below.
~Oshwah~
(talk)
(contribs) 07:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Not Delete - I have edited the article, removing two cite's that were considered unreliable source material, have found the best cite's I can find, which include journalist reviews, added a small amount of information about the concert and its recording. I think I have made it more to the standard required in this learning curve of mine in editing lessons. Nuro Dragonfly ( talk) 01:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- These sources mostly either look unreliable, or contain a mere 2-3 sentences that basically define the album as a Clutch live album, and then list off the track list. That's not significant coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 01:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Well to be blunt it's the best there is and I do not consider that a cause for deletion of the article. The amount of article's missing form various bands releases because they haven't been made or they have been deleted, or the amount of articles that have 1 source cited and have no reviews, makes me consider the efforts being put into the articles that I have done work on to be very arbitrary to say the least and quite blatantly an attack on the 'new guy' buy various 'persons' to add. I do not require links to Wiki this or that for the list of acceptable material to be sourced and used, because as I have stated it's become quite evident that it's a 'click' of 'editors' that very arbitrarily are making these decisions, without being diligent in the work they claim is required by them to do for the sake of the Wikipedia Encyclopedia. And no I'm not going to list the pages I'm referring too as they are numerous in the Music section of the WIki. I expect 'editors' that want to make these decisions to find some source material themselves and actually make more effort than just deleting a page. Nuro Dragonfly ( talk) 01:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- None of that is a valid reason to keep an article. Please read WP:OSE and the WP:GNG. Third party, reliable sources covering the subject in significant detail is what matters. There's been no evidence of this so far. Sergecross73 msg me 02:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Are you kidding me? That is not a good enough response mate. You have to come up with a much better attitude towards the whole situation then that for me to be satisfied with you and those involved, and yes I bluntly expect that to be the case via a much higher authority than the response you just gave..not impressed. Nuro Dragonfly ( talk) 02:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- IE go and AfD every single other article as proof before you come anywhere near my work here on the Wiki.
Nuro Dragonfly (
talk) 02:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Look, I'm sorry, but I believe you've jumped into article creation and deletion debates without understanding how Wikipedia works. You need to provide reliable, third party sources that cover the subject in significant detail. If you can't, the article generally gets deleted or redirected, it's how the website works. Please read up on the WP:GNG. Anything else is probably not relevant to this articles deletion discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 02:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I have added many more cite's to the page, and as it's regarding an album that was released 12 years ago that's not easy. I have found this entire subject to be very biased, based around 1-3 individuals. Out of courtesy I have re-read the 'GNG' and I consider each cite material to be of at least 1 of the requirements on the list. I will expect more than just those who have commented on this debate so far to have a review of the article before any decisions are made. Nuro Dragonfly ( talk) 03:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Can you please list here, which sources you believe to be reliable, third party sources that cover the subject in significant detail? Sergecross73 msg me 04:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Cite's 6 & 7 are of non-English reviews of the album; 6 is from 2005 and 7 from 2011 - both are quite significantly longer reviews than 3 sentences (and I get your point about such an issue and can agree with the Wiki rules about such); all the others are of mention to the recording in the past tense or used to reference release date or track listings of the album itself. I've avoided iTunes and Amazon so far. Nuro Dragonfly ( talk) 04:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Its hard to tell, since they're in different languages, but Google Translate makes it roughly sound like they're more self published bloggers... Sergecross73 msg me 13:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- More Info & Comment - I have amended some of the cite's used and added one from Allmusic; A source that has been extensively used by other editors as a reputable, and notable, source material on extremely numerous articles here on Wikipedia. I hope that this is a more sufficient notable source, as per our policies and guidelines etc., as I'm doing my best to adhere to, now that I have a much better understanding of such things. Nuro msg me 01:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, you added Allmusic user review, which is not usable per WP:USERG. Sergecross73 msg me 15:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- ...right.... Nuro msg me 05:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk 18:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk 18:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment None of the changes to the article since I nominated it for deletion establish its notability. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 23:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - despite the best efforts of the keep editors, the album simply doesn't pass notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 14:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Per WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. After taking additional time to search for sources and listen to the responses brought by my earlier comment, I feel that the required criteria isn't met. The album doesn't appear to have in-depth coverage from many sources (not enough to constitute significant coverage), which means that GNG is not met (which is also a requirement for NALBUMS). Aside from that, I agree that the source I cited in my earlier comment regarding the "Top Chart" source I found doesn't appear to constitute a " reliable source", and no other sources discuss or point out any top charts or notable awards that this album has won. Hence, NALBUMS is also not met. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 07:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 delete. With the exception of the article's creator, unanimous consensus that this doesn't meet our requirements for reliable sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Live in Flint
- Live in Flint ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable album. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 19:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 19:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- I find the attitude by the 'person' deleting my work to be reprehensible and vandalism at that. The fact that someone else has joined in to attack my very blatant words expressed about my unhappiness with the a for mentioned person's vandalism, is indicative of a USA biased attitude on this site. You need to change that attitude quickly. Notable in the USA means nothing. If I put up work solely based out of Australia, then you say thank you, not mess with it. How dare either of you have the attitude you have. How dare anyone on here delete work by others, with a proper debate, just at their whim.
Nuro Dragonfly (
talk) 20:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of the history between you too, but the article is little more than a track listing, and the sources listed aren't reliable, so hounding or not, this is at least a valid nomination, unless there's some large failure of WP:BEFORE I'm missing... Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Article is little more than a tracklist, sources are unreliable and/or violating WP:USERG. I'd be happy to reconsider should someone dig up some better sources, but live albums like this often don't get much in the way of coverage that would help meet the WP:GNG, which the article certainly doesn't now... Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- This 'person' just started deleting my work. Thats not acceptable. For any reason. By anyone. As for the three Clutch albums that are part of this whole mess, they are all live albums which I've been meaning to add info and cite's. Until this 'person' arbitrarily vandalised my work. Other than that I was happy for any reviews to be conducted, and I am looking for better, reliable, source material, but for a concert so long ago it's not easy. I have a very serious problem with the attitude of 'Editors' deleting work by others without such a proper course of review. So I will continue with my research.. Nuro Dragonfly ( talk) 21:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment - I'm on the fence here. The album looks to have been on a top chart in Australia (see here), but I'm not sure of the reliability of this source. It appears to have some reviews and in-depth coverage by secondary sources ( [1], [2], [3]), But I'm not finding enough in-depth coverage to assert that this satisfies WP:GNG (which is also a requirement for WP:NMUSIC). I do see many sites listing the album and its tracks, but nothing about its coverage in-depth. I'm going to present what I found, keep an eye on this page, and see what others come up with. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 22:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Added "Delete" vote; see below.
~Oshwah~
(talk)
(contribs) 07:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- I checked those cite's and the first is one of my home countries independent Album Chart review sites, the second is from the year after the concert (and imo pretty good source) and the third is of a review by a 'fan site', so to speak, about seeing them years after hearing the album in question...I'll keep searching and watching Nuro Dragonfly ( talk) 22:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if those sources help the article meet the WP:GNG though, they're not really what Wikipedia usually would deem reliable. "The Obelisk" (link 2) is just the self-published blogging of one person who doesn't do it professionally or for a living (See About Page.) "Pro-Rock" (link 3) is just a directory/tracklist, no actual prose. Even "Ninehertz" (link 1) while probably the closest to acceptable, is pretty iffy. They do actually have an "About Us" page (see here) but it doesn't say much for their credentials. For instance, the article writer, written merely by "Pete" with a Leslie Nielsen picture as his photo, only credential listed seems to be... being a locksmith? If that's really all that's out there, then I think it really just needs to be mentioned in the band's article or discography page. Sergecross73 msg me 17:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Added "Delete" vote; see below.
~Oshwah~
(talk)
(contribs) 07:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Not Delete - I have edited the article, removing two cite's that were considered unreliable source material, have found the best cite's I can find, which include journalist reviews, added a small amount of information about the concert and its recording. I think I have made it more to the standard required in this learning curve of mine in editing lessons. Nuro Dragonfly ( talk) 01:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- These sources mostly either look unreliable, or contain a mere 2-3 sentences that basically define the album as a Clutch live album, and then list off the track list. That's not significant coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 01:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Well to be blunt it's the best there is and I do not consider that a cause for deletion of the article. The amount of article's missing form various bands releases because they haven't been made or they have been deleted, or the amount of articles that have 1 source cited and have no reviews, makes me consider the efforts being put into the articles that I have done work on to be very arbitrary to say the least and quite blatantly an attack on the 'new guy' buy various 'persons' to add. I do not require links to Wiki this or that for the list of acceptable material to be sourced and used, because as I have stated it's become quite evident that it's a 'click' of 'editors' that very arbitrarily are making these decisions, without being diligent in the work they claim is required by them to do for the sake of the Wikipedia Encyclopedia. And no I'm not going to list the pages I'm referring too as they are numerous in the Music section of the WIki. I expect 'editors' that want to make these decisions to find some source material themselves and actually make more effort than just deleting a page. Nuro Dragonfly ( talk) 01:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- None of that is a valid reason to keep an article. Please read WP:OSE and the WP:GNG. Third party, reliable sources covering the subject in significant detail is what matters. There's been no evidence of this so far. Sergecross73 msg me 02:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Are you kidding me? That is not a good enough response mate. You have to come up with a much better attitude towards the whole situation then that for me to be satisfied with you and those involved, and yes I bluntly expect that to be the case via a much higher authority than the response you just gave..not impressed. Nuro Dragonfly ( talk) 02:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- IE go and AfD every single other article as proof before you come anywhere near my work here on the Wiki.
Nuro Dragonfly (
talk) 02:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Look, I'm sorry, but I believe you've jumped into article creation and deletion debates without understanding how Wikipedia works. You need to provide reliable, third party sources that cover the subject in significant detail. If you can't, the article generally gets deleted or redirected, it's how the website works. Please read up on the WP:GNG. Anything else is probably not relevant to this articles deletion discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 02:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I have added many more cite's to the page, and as it's regarding an album that was released 12 years ago that's not easy. I have found this entire subject to be very biased, based around 1-3 individuals. Out of courtesy I have re-read the 'GNG' and I consider each cite material to be of at least 1 of the requirements on the list. I will expect more than just those who have commented on this debate so far to have a review of the article before any decisions are made. Nuro Dragonfly ( talk) 03:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Can you please list here, which sources you believe to be reliable, third party sources that cover the subject in significant detail? Sergecross73 msg me 04:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Cite's 6 & 7 are of non-English reviews of the album; 6 is from 2005 and 7 from 2011 - both are quite significantly longer reviews than 3 sentences (and I get your point about such an issue and can agree with the Wiki rules about such); all the others are of mention to the recording in the past tense or used to reference release date or track listings of the album itself. I've avoided iTunes and Amazon so far. Nuro Dragonfly ( talk) 04:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Its hard to tell, since they're in different languages, but Google Translate makes it roughly sound like they're more self published bloggers... Sergecross73 msg me 13:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- More Info & Comment - I have amended some of the cite's used and added one from Allmusic; A source that has been extensively used by other editors as a reputable, and notable, source material on extremely numerous articles here on Wikipedia. I hope that this is a more sufficient notable source, as per our policies and guidelines etc., as I'm doing my best to adhere to, now that I have a much better understanding of such things. Nuro msg me 01:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, you added Allmusic user review, which is not usable per WP:USERG. Sergecross73 msg me 15:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- ...right.... Nuro msg me 05:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk 18:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk 18:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment None of the changes to the article since I nominated it for deletion establish its notability. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 23:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - despite the best efforts of the keep editors, the album simply doesn't pass notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 14:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Per WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. After taking additional time to search for sources and listen to the responses brought by my earlier comment, I feel that the required criteria isn't met. The album doesn't appear to have in-depth coverage from many sources (not enough to constitute significant coverage), which means that GNG is not met (which is also a requirement for NALBUMS). Aside from that, I agree that the source I cited in my earlier comment regarding the "Top Chart" source I found doesn't appear to constitute a " reliable source", and no other sources discuss or point out any top charts or notable awards that this album has won. Hence, NALBUMS is also not met. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 07:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- 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.