- 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 keep. There is consensus that the subject meets the GNG, and with Bakazaka's find may well meet WP:NALBUM as well. Either is sufficient for this to be kept. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Psykosoul
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Psykosoul ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NALBUMS. It is only relying a AllMusic link, for album rating. Other than that, this album has no chart positions, awards nominations/wins, no televised performances, etc. This article falls under the text " Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article". Horizonlove ( talk) 04:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Horizonlove ( talk) 04:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Horizonlove ( talk) 04:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Horizonlove ( talk) 04:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep kept at AFD last November where additional reliable sources were identified by @ Doomsdayer520: such as a review in Billboard shown here and it was the topic of a Billboard feature article shown here, together with the allmusic review so it passes WP:GNG and it is as much the nominator's responsibility as anyone else's to use those reliable sources to improve the article, thanks Atlantic306 ( talk) 18:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- @
Atlantic306: Is the Billboard source on this page right now? If not, then it would not pass
WP:GNG. And just because it has a brief mention in Billboard does not make it notable. As the article currently stands, it still fails
WP:NALBUMS. As stated before, this page is little more than track listing. It is also a nominator's and Wikipedia user's responsibility to remove what fails Wikipedia standards.
Horizonlove (
talk) 23:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- No, GNG includes all available sources whether they are in the article or not, it has significant coverage in Billboard and Allmusic and should not be removed instead of the process of improving it
Atlantic306 (
talk) 23:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- @ Atlantic306: First off, General notability guidelines refers to WP:NALBUM in this case because this article is about a music album. Second, under the WP:GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." In this case, it does not. And I just read the "review" on the Billboard source. It was more about the singer (Sy Smith) than her album. The only details it provides about the album, in one sentence, are a few songs from the album and its recording label. It doesn't review the album in a positive or negative rating. Even if did, Billboard and Allmusic are definitely not enough to keep this article's page alive. If the album had appeared on any country's national music chart, been certified gold or higher in at least one country, had a reported album sales figure, won or been nominated for a major music award, etc., then it would meet notability. Frankly, this could easily be merged with the Sy Smith article and we could mention that her album received a review from AllMusic and Billboard. Horizonlove ( talk) 00:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- No, GNG includes all available sources whether they are in the article or not, it has significant coverage in Billboard and Allmusic and should not be removed instead of the process of improving it
Atlantic306 (
talk) 23:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- @
Atlantic306: Is the Billboard source on this page right now? If not, then it would not pass
WP:GNG. And just because it has a brief mention in Billboard does not make it notable. As the article currently stands, it still fails
WP:NALBUMS. As stated before, this page is little more than track listing. It is also a nominator's and Wikipedia user's responsibility to remove what fails Wikipedia standards.
Horizonlove (
talk) 23:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- WP:GNG is independent of the Albums SNG which is a guide as to whether the subject might be notable so it does not have to meet the conditions you listed, it just needs multiple significant coverage in reliable sources which it has in at least Allmusic and Billboard as the second Billboard article is significant coverage. Also see WP:BEFORE Atlantic306 ( talk) 13:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- Procedural Keep - (Sorry for the delay; I've been offline for about the past week.) Admins should review the first AfD for this album, which will look horrifyingly familiar. That was about 4.5 months ago by the same nominator, HorizonLove. The vote then was to keep, based on sources found by myself and others. HorizonLove has renominated with the exact same reasoning and the exact same denials of evidence presented by the same people who voted last time. This indicates a fairly baffling refusal to accept a community decision. This AfD should be closed for procedural reasons, as a completely unnecessary rehash of things already determined before. My advice for the nominator is to move on. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 18:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- My advice is to read
WP:Vote and then
WP:ILIKEIT. In the first deletion nomination, that was very much the case because no one could state how the article passes
WP:NAlbums, just like they can't now.
Horizonlove (
talk) 01:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Seeing no need to repeat the same things I have already said dozens of times, unlike some people around here, my final comment is that the insinuation of "I Like It" votes is pathetically easy to debunk. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 12:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- My advice is to read
WP:Vote and then
WP:ILIKEIT. In the first deletion nomination, that was very much the case because no one could state how the article passes
WP:NAlbums, just like they can't now.
Horizonlove (
talk) 01:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep There were also reviews in Ebony [1] and in Call and Post (no easy online version, citation is "Going deep within Sy Smith's 'psykosoul'". Call and Post. March 9, 2000. p. SH3.). Seems to pass WP:NALBUMS#1. Bakazaka ( talk) 05:52, 11 March 2019 (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 keep. There is consensus that the subject meets the GNG, and with Bakazaka's find may well meet WP:NALBUM as well. Either is sufficient for this to be kept. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Psykosoul
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Psykosoul ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NALBUMS. It is only relying a AllMusic link, for album rating. Other than that, this album has no chart positions, awards nominations/wins, no televised performances, etc. This article falls under the text " Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article". Horizonlove ( talk) 04:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Horizonlove ( talk) 04:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Horizonlove ( talk) 04:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Horizonlove ( talk) 04:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep kept at AFD last November where additional reliable sources were identified by @ Doomsdayer520: such as a review in Billboard shown here and it was the topic of a Billboard feature article shown here, together with the allmusic review so it passes WP:GNG and it is as much the nominator's responsibility as anyone else's to use those reliable sources to improve the article, thanks Atlantic306 ( talk) 18:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- @
Atlantic306: Is the Billboard source on this page right now? If not, then it would not pass
WP:GNG. And just because it has a brief mention in Billboard does not make it notable. As the article currently stands, it still fails
WP:NALBUMS. As stated before, this page is little more than track listing. It is also a nominator's and Wikipedia user's responsibility to remove what fails Wikipedia standards.
Horizonlove (
talk) 23:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- No, GNG includes all available sources whether they are in the article or not, it has significant coverage in Billboard and Allmusic and should not be removed instead of the process of improving it
Atlantic306 (
talk) 23:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- @ Atlantic306: First off, General notability guidelines refers to WP:NALBUM in this case because this article is about a music album. Second, under the WP:GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." In this case, it does not. And I just read the "review" on the Billboard source. It was more about the singer (Sy Smith) than her album. The only details it provides about the album, in one sentence, are a few songs from the album and its recording label. It doesn't review the album in a positive or negative rating. Even if did, Billboard and Allmusic are definitely not enough to keep this article's page alive. If the album had appeared on any country's national music chart, been certified gold or higher in at least one country, had a reported album sales figure, won or been nominated for a major music award, etc., then it would meet notability. Frankly, this could easily be merged with the Sy Smith article and we could mention that her album received a review from AllMusic and Billboard. Horizonlove ( talk) 00:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- No, GNG includes all available sources whether they are in the article or not, it has significant coverage in Billboard and Allmusic and should not be removed instead of the process of improving it
Atlantic306 (
talk) 23:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- @
Atlantic306: Is the Billboard source on this page right now? If not, then it would not pass
WP:GNG. And just because it has a brief mention in Billboard does not make it notable. As the article currently stands, it still fails
WP:NALBUMS. As stated before, this page is little more than track listing. It is also a nominator's and Wikipedia user's responsibility to remove what fails Wikipedia standards.
Horizonlove (
talk) 23:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- WP:GNG is independent of the Albums SNG which is a guide as to whether the subject might be notable so it does not have to meet the conditions you listed, it just needs multiple significant coverage in reliable sources which it has in at least Allmusic and Billboard as the second Billboard article is significant coverage. Also see WP:BEFORE Atlantic306 ( talk) 13:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- Procedural Keep - (Sorry for the delay; I've been offline for about the past week.) Admins should review the first AfD for this album, which will look horrifyingly familiar. That was about 4.5 months ago by the same nominator, HorizonLove. The vote then was to keep, based on sources found by myself and others. HorizonLove has renominated with the exact same reasoning and the exact same denials of evidence presented by the same people who voted last time. This indicates a fairly baffling refusal to accept a community decision. This AfD should be closed for procedural reasons, as a completely unnecessary rehash of things already determined before. My advice for the nominator is to move on. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 18:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- My advice is to read
WP:Vote and then
WP:ILIKEIT. In the first deletion nomination, that was very much the case because no one could state how the article passes
WP:NAlbums, just like they can't now.
Horizonlove (
talk) 01:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Seeing no need to repeat the same things I have already said dozens of times, unlike some people around here, my final comment is that the insinuation of "I Like It" votes is pathetically easy to debunk. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 12:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- My advice is to read
WP:Vote and then
WP:ILIKEIT. In the first deletion nomination, that was very much the case because no one could state how the article passes
WP:NAlbums, just like they can't now.
Horizonlove (
talk) 01:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep There were also reviews in Ebony [1] and in Call and Post (no easy online version, citation is "Going deep within Sy Smith's 'psykosoul'". Call and Post. March 9, 2000. p. SH3.). Seems to pass WP:NALBUMS#1. Bakazaka ( talk) 05:52, 11 March 2019 (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.