Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ-Kicks: Tiga

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 Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 15:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DJ-Kicks: Tiga

DJ-Kicks: Tiga (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This was originally speedy-deleted as CSD A7 and CSD G11. DRV overturned, finding an assertion of notability sufficient to prevent this from being classified as outright spam. Still, Delete, as major concerns regarding notability and promotional content remain. Xoloz 15:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and Salt. Not notable, possibly COI. The fact that it was created and deleted twice calls for Salt. James Luftan 15:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete (and Salt) as per Xoloz and James Luftan. 72.76.6.129 20:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep DJ Tiga is a perfectly notable dj [1]. And DJ Kicks is a label that has released Carl Craig, C.J. Bolland and Felix Da Housecat; you can't get more notable than those guys.--Victor falk 00:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• If an artist is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, as Tiga most certainly is, then said artist's albums are notable enough for their own articles. A7 applies to people, not to albums, and Tiga passes it handily. And G11 has the proviso "Note that simply having a company, product, group, service, or person as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion" written right into it, specifying that the actual content has to be inappropriate. Which this isn't; it's entirely consistent with standard Wikipedia tone and content for articles about albums. There was only one sentence in the entire article that was even remotely "advertising"-like, so I removed that — and now there isn't a single "tone" problem left to be had. Ergo, keep.Bearcat 04:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Bearcat, you have removed the contentious sentence, which I believe was advertising for the artist and the album and is totally unencyclopedic (see the entry on the talk page). That's fine, and I agree with your edit, but the same thing was done once before, and the edit was shot down by P4k with the edit summary: "what is wrong with you." Following the logic you employed in the post above (re notable artist = notable album), and according to the summary listed by P4k, if there was something "wrong" with the first editor who removed the sentence, then there must be something "wrong" with you as well, for removing the sentence. Now I don't think there's anything wrong with you or the first editor (especially since I agree with your edits) but what is to prevent P4k or any other editor from coming along and restoring the contentious sentence? Please see additional comment below under your reply to GreenJoe. 72.68.122.101 12:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Wikipedia isn't a junkyard. --GreenJoe 04:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Exactly how does an album by a notable musician constitute being a "junkyard"? Bearcat 04:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment WP:MUSIC#Albums:

• Bearcat, I intepret GreenJoe's comment to mean that related material should not be spread all over Wikipedia. Consider what we have with Tiga, the collection and the albums and artists on it, and the record label: Tiga has his own article, the record label has its own article, the collection has its own article, and some of the artists and some of the albums in the collection have their own article. On the collection page, each artist is listed with details from the album (including the record label's catalog number), every album that has its own article is linked, and nearly every artist listed there is linked to her/his own article, so in some cases we have duplication, and in some, triplication. And, we have external links to the record label for an oh so convenient link to make a purchase. I would suggest merging (intentionally written not in boldface) the album content to the artists' pages, but then what to do with the track listings? And why must there be track listings? -- why so much detail? I think it's because there's a need to fill what would be much space next to the infobox in the absence of any track listing. I believe this whole kit and caboodle is one huge coordinated advert for the artists, the label, the collection, and the albums. And I don't know what to suggest to do about it. 72.68.122.101 12:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• If that's the approach we take, then no album should ever have an article on Wikipedia. Bearcat 17:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• This is an album by a notable artist, and it has been reviewed by critics in many third-party publications—just now I added a few more to the list under Professional reviews. Keep. --Paul Erik 04:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge. Info on this artist is all over Wikipedia as cited above. Regarding the comment above: "If the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage" -- that is, "...albums may have sufficient notability..." That the artist is notable is given, though I wonder if his notability extends beyond people in the electro industry, people writing about the electro industry, or those who frequent clubs where electro music is played. I don't see how this album is notable. The question here is whether the article standing on its own can be free from promotional content. The contentious sentence which has us here in discussion was removed twice and restored twice; what is to prevent it from being restored yet again, making this article even more free advertising for the album and artist? I say merge this article onto his bio article, removing extraneous material. 71.127.229.221 13:34, 3 August 2007 (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.