Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.O.N.O.G.R.A.M.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] S.O.N.O.G.R.A.M.

S.O.N.O.G.R.A.M. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

13,000 copies solf - only another 487,000 copies and it'll be gold! Honestly, that is a terribly low sales figure. Guy (Help!) 00:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. What more can I say? This is not notable. --PigmanTalk to me 02:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete (conditional) Please also nominate One_Be_Lo, as per WP:MUSIC "the general consensus on notability of albums is that if the musician or ensemble that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia". So unless you nominate also One_Be_Lo I don't see how the nomination can be supported as if One Be Lo is notable to have an article his albums are allowed.--Dacium 04:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notability is explicitly not synonymous with popularity, especially in underground rap where importance is not measured in gold records: Underground Rap is an explicit criticism of the commercialism of rap music. No underground album could possibly "go gold", yet underground rap is an important cultural and musical influence. By the proposed standard, all underground rap albums could be AfD. As the only argument for deletion is non-notability via low sales, this nomination lacks sufficient justification. --Richard Daly 04:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Nope. WP:NOT a directory, we need multiple non-trivial independent sources about this record. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Richard Daly and Dacium. "...if the musician or ensemble that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia."-K@ngiemeep! 06:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Whilst notability is explicitly not synonymous with popularity, a notable artist would still be capable of producing duds, although in this case, if the album had been hammerred by reviewers, it would be notable for being the dud which it is. In the absence, I would say that it is indeed not notable. Ohconfucius 07:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see no evidence that it is in fact non-notable. Lots of reasonably good reviews, a known artist, okay it didn't sell well but that doesn't indicate lack of notability. Also I wouldn't have said 13K was a terribly low sales figure, by the top flight groups yes, but to many notable groups and artists out there that isn't a bad figure. Ben W Bell talk 08:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ben W Bell. Also note the very positive reviews on AMG and PopMatters.96T 16:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep No evidence that it is non-notable. Has resonable reviews and is a known artist. --Djsasso 16:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Article meets WP:NN and the deletion of this article would not be the best of moves with respect and it does meet notability.Tellyaddict 17:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge iff One Be Lo is in fact notable to One Be Lo; honestly, there's hardly anything to say in this guy's article, may as well toss his discography in with it since there's not much to say about the album either. GassyGuy 19:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge to One Be Lo per GassyGuy. Notability "is not synonymous with 'fame' or 'importance'." (from WP:N) -- Black Falcon 19:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, multiple reviews assert notability just fine. -Seinfreak37 20:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, I'm not sure if my argument should go here as I'm the creator, but why do sales figure matter that much? The album was only released in 2005 so it will need time to get to a respectable figure. It's received rave reviews from most sources (including AMG). If sales figures are all you're basing this one, then shouldn't you delete Radiohead's seventh studio album aswell? :) Powelldinho 22:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Richard. Dfrg.msc 22:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep meets notability thresholds easily. - Denny 23:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Just Heditor review 23:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with all the above, a very notable figure in underground hip hop. Also for an independent lable 13,000 is a very good number especially with the lack of promotions. It has also received very good reviews form various sources. www.rapreviews.com, http://www.avclub.com/content/node/16006, this one is from the Onion. If artists aren't notable because of low record sales we would have a lot less articles, take a look at the Pixies, Meat Puppets, Ratatat all have smaller record sales (around the time they began) they are all obviously notable. --HiphopisNOTdead 27:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep There appear to be scads of independent reviews for this artist and his albums. The nominator should do his homework. -MrFizyx 06:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This artist was also apart of Binary Star, who, aside from having album listings on iTunes, have received recognition for their work. S.O.N.O.G.R.A.M. is also able to be purchased via iTunes (that is where I bought it from). The deletion of this article would be promoting and justifying the deletion of several other articles on Wikipedia, as is written in the above comments. Also, keep in mind that this article is relatively well put-together. There is an accurate listing of all of the producers, artists, singles etc. Keep this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delaguerra09 (talk • contribs)
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.