- 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Nothing Is Free
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Nothing Is Free ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
|I favour redirecting this to Justin Broaderick discography & did so; this was reverted with a claim that 'articles from Exclaim, Stereogum, and Fact that focus on the EP.' None of these are anything more than notices that this recording has been released. Nothing approaching any in-depth coverage. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - Fact, Stereogum, The Quietus, Exclaim!, and Metal Injection all found the EP notable enough to write about. These articles offer enough substance to support a section beyond a lead. What's more, this is an EP, not an album, so the requirements for notability shouldn't be as steep. It's my opinion that these sources are non-trivial. Note: I started the article a year ago. CelestialWeevil ( talk) 14:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- @
CelestialWeevil: - not a response to your primary argument, but why should an EP have gentler notability requirements than an album?
Nosebagbear (
talk) 19:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- @
Nosebagbear: I read on some rule page once that older albums require less sources to be notable than newer ones (sorry, I don't have the link right now). I figure smaller albums (EPs) could be treated the same way, but with size instead of age. Maybe not, though.
CelestialWeevil (
talk) 19:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- @
CelestialWeevil: Are you talking about
WP:NALBUM? –
The Grid (
talk) 00:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- @ The Grid: I wish I was, but I don't think so. I'll have to look further. CelestialWeevil ( talk) 14:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- @
CelestialWeevil: Are you talking about
WP:NALBUM? –
The Grid (
talk) 00:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- @
Nosebagbear: I read on some rule page once that older albums require less sources to be notable than newer ones (sorry, I don't have the link right now). I figure smaller albums (EPs) could be treated the same way, but with size instead of age. Maybe not, though.
CelestialWeevil (
talk) 19:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- @
CelestialWeevil: - not a response to your primary argument, but why should an EP have gentler notability requirements than an album?
Nosebagbear (
talk) 19:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: just because Broadrick says it's an EP doesn't make it one. At nine songs and 55 minutes, this would be classified as an album under the chart rules of any country and it should be treated as such. Richard3120 ( talk) 12:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- @
Richard3120: Good point! I'm inclined to agree with you. I wouldn't call it an EP, regardless of it being on the cover and it being referred to as such. But it is, so what can ya do.
CelestialWeevil (
talk) 14:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- @ Richard3120: It's definitely not an album either though, since every article I've seen refers to Rise Above as the official second album. Nothing Is Free is a compilation of tracks that originally weren't intended to sit on an album together. PalmTreeEden ( talk) 19:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- @
Richard3120: Good point! I'm inclined to agree with you. I wouldn't call it an EP, regardless of it being on the cover and it being referred to as such. But it is, so what can ya do.
CelestialWeevil (
talk) 14:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- comment My point is that the souces don't write about this ep. They mention it, presumabably because they can find nothing of any interest to say about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLongTone ( talk • contribs) 08:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Presumably because they can find nothing of interest to say about it? Sorry, but I can't buy that. I don't want to talk about the musical content here, it doesn't seem relevant, but there could be so many more reasons. Lack of time, lack of readership interest, an over-saturation of similar material. And even then, like I said, they write enough to warrant more prose than just a lead.
CelestialWeevil (
talk) 14:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Can it at least be demonstrated that the EP meets one of the criteria listed in
WP:NALBUM? Note that criteria 1 would mean anything outside of reviews of the EP. –
The Grid (
talk) 16:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- @ The Grid: Sorry, but I'm not seeing where criterion 1 precludes reviews. The references are reliable (I verified with WP:RSMUSIC), not self-published, and independent from the musician. CelestialWeevil ( talk) 17:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- By the way, I got a few more references from Resident Advisor and Crack Magazine now. CelestialWeevil ( talk) 17:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Can it at least be demonstrated that the EP meets one of the criteria listed in
WP:NALBUM? Note that criteria 1 would mean anything outside of reviews of the EP. –
The Grid (
talk) 16:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Presumably because they can find nothing of interest to say about it? Sorry, but I can't buy that. I don't want to talk about the musical content here, it doesn't seem relevant, but there could be so many more reasons. Lack of time, lack of readership interest, an over-saturation of similar material. And even then, like I said, they write enough to warrant more prose than just a lead.
CelestialWeevil (
talk) 14:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Another update, User:PalmTreeEden has added some reviews. I don't really think these are necessarily reputable sources, but someone might know better than me. CelestialWeevil ( talk) 19:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- @ TheLongTone: @ CelestialWeevil: All three sources seemed unbiased (not promotional) enough to me. They all have a large following in the thousands on their Twitters so they aren't exactly fan blogs. PalmTreeEden ( talk) 19:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- @
PalmTreeEden: Right. I appreciate your help, by the way. I think the main issue is establishing credibility of the authors. Honestly, though, I don't know how to do that. I've never tried before.
CelestialWeevil (
talk) 19:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- So there are a few reviews (there's actually another
here) which easily pass Sig Cov. A couple fail independent (or at least, I'm fairly confident in that), Freq is an interesting example. It doesn't have any direct bias (since it generates no revenue), that said, whether it has sufficient editorial control to be reliable, I don't know. BrooklynVegan (and Freq) are fairly big - it's not just some random unreliable blogs. But whether they are sufficiently reliable to count, I'm just not sure.
- I added that one and moved down the Crack Magazine quote since it's de facto a review too. PalmTreeEden ( talk) 20:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- So there are a few reviews (there's actually another
here) which easily pass Sig Cov. A couple fail independent (or at least, I'm fairly confident in that), Freq is an interesting example. It doesn't have any direct bias (since it generates no revenue), that said, whether it has sufficient editorial control to be reliable, I don't know. BrooklynVegan (and Freq) are fairly big - it's not just some random unreliable blogs. But whether they are sufficiently reliable to count, I'm just not sure.
- @
PalmTreeEden: Right. I appreciate your help, by the way. I think the main issue is establishing credibility of the authors. Honestly, though, I don't know how to do that. I've never tried before.
CelestialWeevil (
talk) 19:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I think there is now enough interview and review coverage from multiple independent sources to make the subject notable. PalmTreeEden ( talk) 15:34, 7 November 2018 (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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Nothing Is Free
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Nothing Is Free ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
|I favour redirecting this to Justin Broaderick discography & did so; this was reverted with a claim that 'articles from Exclaim, Stereogum, and Fact that focus on the EP.' None of these are anything more than notices that this recording has been released. Nothing approaching any in-depth coverage. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - Fact, Stereogum, The Quietus, Exclaim!, and Metal Injection all found the EP notable enough to write about. These articles offer enough substance to support a section beyond a lead. What's more, this is an EP, not an album, so the requirements for notability shouldn't be as steep. It's my opinion that these sources are non-trivial. Note: I started the article a year ago. CelestialWeevil ( talk) 14:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- @
CelestialWeevil: - not a response to your primary argument, but why should an EP have gentler notability requirements than an album?
Nosebagbear (
talk) 19:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- @
Nosebagbear: I read on some rule page once that older albums require less sources to be notable than newer ones (sorry, I don't have the link right now). I figure smaller albums (EPs) could be treated the same way, but with size instead of age. Maybe not, though.
CelestialWeevil (
talk) 19:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- @
CelestialWeevil: Are you talking about
WP:NALBUM? –
The Grid (
talk) 00:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- @ The Grid: I wish I was, but I don't think so. I'll have to look further. CelestialWeevil ( talk) 14:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- @
CelestialWeevil: Are you talking about
WP:NALBUM? –
The Grid (
talk) 00:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- @
Nosebagbear: I read on some rule page once that older albums require less sources to be notable than newer ones (sorry, I don't have the link right now). I figure smaller albums (EPs) could be treated the same way, but with size instead of age. Maybe not, though.
CelestialWeevil (
talk) 19:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- @
CelestialWeevil: - not a response to your primary argument, but why should an EP have gentler notability requirements than an album?
Nosebagbear (
talk) 19:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: just because Broadrick says it's an EP doesn't make it one. At nine songs and 55 minutes, this would be classified as an album under the chart rules of any country and it should be treated as such. Richard3120 ( talk) 12:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- @
Richard3120: Good point! I'm inclined to agree with you. I wouldn't call it an EP, regardless of it being on the cover and it being referred to as such. But it is, so what can ya do.
CelestialWeevil (
talk) 14:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- @ Richard3120: It's definitely not an album either though, since every article I've seen refers to Rise Above as the official second album. Nothing Is Free is a compilation of tracks that originally weren't intended to sit on an album together. PalmTreeEden ( talk) 19:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- @
Richard3120: Good point! I'm inclined to agree with you. I wouldn't call it an EP, regardless of it being on the cover and it being referred to as such. But it is, so what can ya do.
CelestialWeevil (
talk) 14:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- comment My point is that the souces don't write about this ep. They mention it, presumabably because they can find nothing of any interest to say about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLongTone ( talk • contribs) 08:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Presumably because they can find nothing of interest to say about it? Sorry, but I can't buy that. I don't want to talk about the musical content here, it doesn't seem relevant, but there could be so many more reasons. Lack of time, lack of readership interest, an over-saturation of similar material. And even then, like I said, they write enough to warrant more prose than just a lead.
CelestialWeevil (
talk) 14:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Can it at least be demonstrated that the EP meets one of the criteria listed in
WP:NALBUM? Note that criteria 1 would mean anything outside of reviews of the EP. –
The Grid (
talk) 16:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- @ The Grid: Sorry, but I'm not seeing where criterion 1 precludes reviews. The references are reliable (I verified with WP:RSMUSIC), not self-published, and independent from the musician. CelestialWeevil ( talk) 17:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- By the way, I got a few more references from Resident Advisor and Crack Magazine now. CelestialWeevil ( talk) 17:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Can it at least be demonstrated that the EP meets one of the criteria listed in
WP:NALBUM? Note that criteria 1 would mean anything outside of reviews of the EP. –
The Grid (
talk) 16:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Presumably because they can find nothing of interest to say about it? Sorry, but I can't buy that. I don't want to talk about the musical content here, it doesn't seem relevant, but there could be so many more reasons. Lack of time, lack of readership interest, an over-saturation of similar material. And even then, like I said, they write enough to warrant more prose than just a lead.
CelestialWeevil (
talk) 14:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Another update, User:PalmTreeEden has added some reviews. I don't really think these are necessarily reputable sources, but someone might know better than me. CelestialWeevil ( talk) 19:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- @ TheLongTone: @ CelestialWeevil: All three sources seemed unbiased (not promotional) enough to me. They all have a large following in the thousands on their Twitters so they aren't exactly fan blogs. PalmTreeEden ( talk) 19:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- @
PalmTreeEden: Right. I appreciate your help, by the way. I think the main issue is establishing credibility of the authors. Honestly, though, I don't know how to do that. I've never tried before.
CelestialWeevil (
talk) 19:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- So there are a few reviews (there's actually another
here) which easily pass Sig Cov. A couple fail independent (or at least, I'm fairly confident in that), Freq is an interesting example. It doesn't have any direct bias (since it generates no revenue), that said, whether it has sufficient editorial control to be reliable, I don't know. BrooklynVegan (and Freq) are fairly big - it's not just some random unreliable blogs. But whether they are sufficiently reliable to count, I'm just not sure.
- I added that one and moved down the Crack Magazine quote since it's de facto a review too. PalmTreeEden ( talk) 20:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- So there are a few reviews (there's actually another
here) which easily pass Sig Cov. A couple fail independent (or at least, I'm fairly confident in that), Freq is an interesting example. It doesn't have any direct bias (since it generates no revenue), that said, whether it has sufficient editorial control to be reliable, I don't know. BrooklynVegan (and Freq) are fairly big - it's not just some random unreliable blogs. But whether they are sufficiently reliable to count, I'm just not sure.
- @
PalmTreeEden: Right. I appreciate your help, by the way. I think the main issue is establishing credibility of the authors. Honestly, though, I don't know how to do that. I've never tried before.
CelestialWeevil (
talk) 19:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I think there is now enough interview and review coverage from multiple independent sources to make the subject notable. PalmTreeEden ( talk) 15:34, 7 November 2018 (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.