Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The County Hound 2

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The County Hound 2

edit
The County Hound 2 (edit | 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. At first glance, it looks like there are a lot of sources. Closer inspection shows most are either superficial mentions or merely proof that a single exists. Other sources are background and bio about the artist, not about this album. Also some questionable sources. There just isn't significant coverage by reliable third party sources. This could be a case of WP:TOOSOON, although the artist's last studio album failed to chart and failed to garner significant coverage, which led that article to AfD, resulting in a redirect.[1] Niteshift36 (talk) 01:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allegations of bad faith won't help you. Please try to comment on the issue and not obsess about your personal issues with me. Actually, the album received little coverage itself in third party sources. Another album, Euthanasia got a bit more. This one was mostly just mentioned. Blogs and sources without a reputation for editorial oversight don't become reliable just because they use GNews. In fact, being listed in GNews wouldn't make them pass RS, just ask the blacklisted Examiner.com or Now Public.com. Overloading a list of links to what are pretty much mentions don't add up to significant coverage. A 30 word blurb saying "there is an album coming" isn't significant. And yes, TOOSOON can be applied after a release. If it can apply to already released films WP:NYF and actors who are acting (just not notable yet), why would albums be exempt? You are correct that charting alone is not a requirement. That's probably why I listed the lack of significant coverage of the actual album by reliable third parties as my actual reason. Take note that my comment about not charting pertained to his last album, not this one. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually every single source I listed has editorial oversight and is a third party reliable source, but then again I am a better judge of that then you since you know nothing about music as has been proved in the past. GNews is just even more proof of their acceptance as news sources and as I pointed out they all have editorial oversight and are not blogs. Again with other sites that are not cited in this article, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. You are again just making nonsense, factually incorrect comments. The album has received significant coverage in reliable sources, so it passes WP:NALBUMS. STATic message me! 02:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, please try to stay on the issue and not waste my time with your personal opinions on what I do/do not know. That will also save me from having to point out your extensive list of shortcomings. I don't recall calling any of them blogs, but apparently, you have decided that I did and just declared it to be true. You could provide the diff where I called them a blog....or just accept the fact that you fabricated that and tried to make it sound like I said it. Again, a collection of short blurbs stating that an album is coming or that this is a single from an upcoming album really isn't significant. You've spent a lot of time trying to convince people that the sources are reliable or that mentions exist and you've really failed to address my actual point, which is the lack of significant coverage. A hundred mentions don't get you past notability. For someone who "doesn't have time for this", you seem to be hovering over the keyboard, waiting to respond. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Blogs and sources without a reputation for editorial oversight don't become reliable just because they use GNews." Read your response and you'll see it. So now you are admitting that they are reliable sources, and since there is significant coverage in them, that makes this nomination pointless. Also keep your personal attacks to yourself. There is really no point in us having a long winded discussion here, just wait for others to comment so finally someone else besides me can tell you that you are wrong. STATic message me! 02:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I said that.....it's a statement about what doesn't become reliable because it's on Gnews. There is no statement that these are blogs. Perhaps I could have been more clear. Perhaps you could have not made the assumption. In either case, I have cleared that up now, so we can all know that I didn't call your sources a blog. Happy? And no, I haven't "admitted" that those sources are reliable. I was quite clear that being on GNews doesn't really make you a RS. Some of those sources you've used are reliable, without question. I never said otherwise. What I've said was that there is no significant coverage about this album. I haven't really attacked you my friend and you have zero room to play the victim in this discussion. Yeah, you're always right, just like you were with the last Cashis related album that went to AfD and you told me how wrong I was and how right you were. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I used Wordcounter.net on every reliable source I provided above, and guess what, none of them are 30 words or less as you claim, so I guess it is significant coverage after all, for the record none of them are under 50. The coverage is obviously there. Not to mention that is not even the entire coverage. We both know you did not do a WP:BEFORE or even bother looking at the references before starting this, again this nomination screams WP:POINT. Also additional coverage not cited in the article includes [3] and [4]. Also do not put words in my mouth I never said that before, and that difference is his debut album was hardly covered at all, nothing about it was covered. This album is quite different. STATic message me! 04:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ignoring thefact that you took the whole 30 words thing way to literally.....Perhaps you should look again. Apparently you just decided to look at everything as being part of the coverage. Take this source: [5]. It actually starts out about Eminem. The part about Cashis is "check out Ca$his' upcoming record The County Hound 2 (release date, October 15). The Chicago rapper recently departed from Shady Records to start his own label, but Em still helped (co) produce four fresh tunes on Ca$his' second studio record. Read on for more details.". Then it's merely a track list. That's 45 words and a track list, just announcing that it I coming. This source [6]: Is another article about Eminem and the only thing about Cashis is "Meanwhile, MLive reports that Eminem is now turning to production, producing four tracks on Chicago rapper Ca$his’ new album, “The County Hound 2.” The songs are titled “Layin’ In The Cut,” “Thru the Glass,” “Ask About Me,” and “Cigarello” and the album will be released on October 15.". 48 words, merely mentioning the album and listing single titles. This source [7] gives us a whopping 53 words, again merely saying it is being release on that day. This one [8] is again, merely saying it's coming. When did 40-50 words merely announcing something is coming become significant coverage? Some of these are just mentions in articles about a much more notable artist. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So now that I proved you wrong with the 30 word thing, you're going to take it back? You can falsely interpret however you want, the significant coverage is there, especially for an independent hip hop artist. You only took four of of dozens of examples. You are also misinterpreting the amount of coverage needed to pass WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. STATic message me! 17:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I won't be. Because I didn't say it as a literal number. Besides, if you actually remove the crap that is NOT about the album from several of these, it would be 30 words. And I'm not misinterpreting anything. You just don't like it. We're clearly not going to agree on what significant coverage is. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which sources covered the actual album with more than a paragraph or two? Most of the ones I'm seeing were talking about the artist or a singlualr song, then mention the album. As for the coming coverage (which didn't happen on the last one), isn't our practice to have the coverage, then write, not write and hope for coverage? Niteshift36 (talk) 12:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the sources primarily discuss the album such as, the two I cited in my last response, the Respect. source, one of the HipHopDX sources, the Mstarz and the stupidDOPE source. Also as long as the sources discussing the singles mention the album its fine, does not carry that much weight, but with all the coverage present in the article and above, it clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. STATic message me! 16:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect Definitely WP:TOOSOON but I can find no "extraordinary" coverage. It's the same content of every "Next Biggest Rap Star" that we hear week in and week out. Perhaps if the album charts, but the album just released a day ago (from this sign point). Merge to the artist's page at this time Hasteur (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sound like more of a personal opinion on rap in general than a actual reasoning for it not passing WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG. The coverage is clearly there, not MTV or Rolling Stone, but with proper research they are all reliable sources with editorial teams/editorial oversight. On WP:TOOSOON, most albums have articles months in advance, an article being created the day or day after it comes out is what is preferred. STATic message me! 19:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_County_Hound_2&oldid=1138836867"