Talk:Broken (Memphis May Fire album)

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

No consensus, 30 November 2018, see discussion.
Restore article and send to WP:AFD, 2018 November 23, see discussion.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal 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.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal

Albums

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

Contested redirect

Hello, I have created the Memphis May Fire - Broken page album. I have noticed that you deleted my work, because of "non-notable". I'm not agree with your motivation and I would ask you to argue more your reasons, thank you. Have a good day! -- Ibbus93 (talk) 09:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ibbus93: I moved this from my talk page, where you left it, because other editors might be interested in the discussion and this seems like the most appropriate location for it to happen. The reasons are that the sources are not reliable (see WP:RS). You had https://twitter.com/memphismayfire/status/1042217362978754567, which is a WP:PRIMARY source so doesn't help establish notability. https://rateyourmusic.com/release/album/memphis-may-fire/broken/, is not a professional review source, the review at https://killyourstereo.com/reviews/1104646/memphis-may-fire-broken/ was written by Hunter Hewgley, but then again, Kill Your Stereo doesn't have a staff page so we don't know what sort of contributor he is. I found a database entry at AllMusic, but it has no review or rating. So unless this album receives significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, I don't see this changing from a redirect. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ibbus93: I still do not see significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That's what WP:GNG states is required to presume that a subject is notable. WP:NALBUM adds some specific criteria such as charting, but the album still did not have any sources that meet that. The closest is http://loudwire.com/memphis-may-fire-broken-album-the-old-me-single/ but that is not significant coverage. The others are either not reliable sources (blogs) or are involved with the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: I am partial agree with you. The Noise article is a good reference, they transcribed a previouse interview of Matty Mullins that provides informations about the writing process. The reviews are still not reliable, RateYourMusic was the first one. I found wrong to not have a page for the album, even if the informations are not complete. Informations, for example, like the track list need a new article page, they cannot be included into the main article, even if the new article does not provide the most value. Sorry for my bad english, have a good day! -- Ibbus93 (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Rate Your Music is a site that allows anyone to post a rating of an album. https://rateyourmusic.com/release/album/memphis-may-fire/broken.p/ is just a database entry (as is the Spotify link and the AllMusic link). The blogs (http://bringthenoise.com/blog/the-noise-presents-atreyus-in-our-wake-tour-with and http://bringthenoise.com/blog/qa-matty-mullins-talks-new-memphis-may-fire) may be interesting, but they're still just blogs. So in short, these are the references your edit included:

I saw several of them when I was looking, but rejected them because they either did not contain significant coverage, were not reliable sources, or were associated with the band. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There were two added recently

The first only mentions the album in passing while Alternative Press is WP:ROUTINE coverage that offers a release announcement and track listing but does not discuss it in any detail. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]