Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inside Voices / Outside Voices

Add links
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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inside Voices / Outside Voices

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Inside Voices / Outside Voices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLAR was reverted but I stand by my reasoning. Present sources, including the two added since my redirect, are mostly unreliable and those that aren't still don't provide much evidence of notability. My search didn't turn up anything else that did either, hence the redirect to K.Flay#2021–2022: Inside Voices / Outside Voices which I think should be reinstated. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!
I am the primary author of the page in question.
Personally, I don’t believe that the citations are unreliable.
I do understand why you removed my article Mono (K.Flay album); I will republish the article later this year when the album comes out along with citations and more information.
However, this page has been published for months without any warnings about the sources and I just don’t see what the problem is.
What leads you to believe that any of the page’s citations are untrustworthy? And why do you think the album isn’t relevant enough to have its own page?
Thanks,
SaltieChips SaltieChips (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Agree that the current sourcing is pretty weak, though I was able to find a little more that helps:
  1. https://www.nme.com/news/music/k-flay-drops-exhilarating-new-ep-outside-voices-3100480
  2. https://www.thelineofbestfit.com/reviews/albums/k-flay-inside-voices-ep-review
  3. https://americansongwriter.com/k-flay-lets-the-superego-take-over-for-new-ep-outside-voices/
All three are from WP:RSMUSIC. I found one from the website "Bring the Noise" too that I thought we considered reliable, but it's not at RSMUSIC so I could be mistaken. Sergecross73 msg me 01:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Saw those in my search. NME looks very press release-based and American Songwriter seems to be mostly interview. The Line of Best Fit is good but that only brings us to one source. Not sure I'm familiar with Bring the Noise so I can't speak to its reliability, but perhaps it's worth bringing up at WT:ALBUMS in case your memory was serving you well. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I agree with that assessment of American Songwriter though. There's plenty of quotes, sure, but it's lengthy and not in interview format. Sergecross73 msg me 02:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Simple mentions or quotes don't help notability. There isn't much of anything beyond these (or beyond primary sources) for this person. I can't find any extensive coverage of them. Oaktree b (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The term is used aplenty in scholarly journals dealing with childhood education, but I can't find mention of either the singer or the musical album in question. Oaktree b (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How closely did you review and search for things? Even the nominator did better than "I can't seem to find anything". And even beyond that, there's no reason to not at least redirect it. There's no implausibility of such a search term. (If there is, you certainly didn't articulate it.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I clicked on the links given in the deletion template, all the terms that came up were related to raising children. I haven't spent hours and hours digging out sources from the void for this article however. Oaktree b (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for confirming my suspicions at least. Sergecross73 msg me 19:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "Alternative Press" is tagged as green/reliable by the source bot, three are red/unreliable, the rest have no opinion on notability, per the bot. I'm still not seeing notability, and no further extensive sourcing has been added or mentioned in this discussion. Oaktree b (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2023 (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/Inside_Voices_/_Outside_Voices&oldid=1167898563"