Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radio 1 Sessions (Inspiral Carpets album)

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 merge to Inspiral Carpets. If and when more sources are found, the article can be restored from the history. So Why 10:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Radio 1 Sessions (Inspiral Carpets album)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. This Allmusic review [1] is the only reliable secondary source about the album that I could find. It hardly seems like enough. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Would have been reviewed by all the UK pop/rock press when it came out. --Michig (talk) 08:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not so sure about that assertion, Michig. The UK newspapers are unlikely to have reviewed it, which leaves NME and Melody Maker - and it's far from certain they would have reviewed a Peel Sessions album, there are many of them and they didn't review every one that came out. Richard3120 (talk) 11:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inspiral Carpets were a huge band in the sphere of music covered by the UK music press. It would likely have been reviewed in NME, Melody Maker, Q, Select, Uncut, VOX, and several newspapers. --Michig (talk) 11:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'm not nearly as confident as you are about that - they were certainly a reasonably big (I wouldn't say huge) band in the early 90s, but by 1999 interest in them had definitely fallen away, and a Peel Sessions album by them would not have been seen as a major release. I wish I could get to the British Library to check back issues of the music press to see if any of the magazines did review it - I'd think it would be more likely to find something in Q or in Mojo than anything else, given they had the biggest review sections of all the magazines, and included all sorts of reissues and speciality releases. I'm not sure Vox was still going in 1999. I would be willing to put money on the album not having been reviewed in a single newspaper. Richard3120 (talk) 12:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I've just seen the article gives two different dates for the album's release, 1999 in the lead and 1996 in the infobox - this needs correcting. Either way, the band was not active at this point, so the record wouldn't have been that eagerly anticipated. Richard3120 (talk) 12:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Release date was 28 May 1999, now corrected. I'm sure all the people that bought it might disagree with you. --Michig (talk) 12:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to be proved wrong on this, honestly - if I were in London right now, I'd go to the British Library and search through back issues of the music mags to try and find some reviews, but unfortunately I'm not in a position to do that at the moment. Richard3120 (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Michig should the personal belief of sources be considered a keep rationale? Couldn't I just say, "well, I believe there are sources" for just about any AfD discussions?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm appealing to 'common sense' by arguing that a significant release by a major band would have got enough coverage to justify an article, which would not be the case for "just about any AfD discussion". Unfortunately that sort of sense isn't as common as the name suggests, and just as unfortunately, music press reviews from that era are generally not found online. --Michig (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote to merge to Inspiral Carpets. Since we don't currently have much coverage available to base an article on, a brief summary of this release and what's on it in the 'Post-split activities (1995–2003)' section would be sufficient until such time that more coverage is found. --Michig (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although coverage is weak, general consensus is that when a band reaches a significant level of success, we should include all their albums including retrospective compilations or archive releases. Examples: Something's Coming: The BBC Recordings 1969–1970, The 1st Singles Box Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing this band to Yes is a bit of a stretch, isn't it? Michig's merge proposal is much more plausible and actually follows written guidelines. Just because the general consensus is to keep non-notable album articles for noteworthy artists, does not mean it is correct.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Inspiral Carpets per Michig. --Ifnord (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 02:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: while Michig and I may disagree about the likelihood of coverage existing for this album, I think we are both in agreement that all potential sources will only exist in print form. It looks like this AfD is heading towards a merge, but I've put this album on my list of things to do next time I'm at the British Library in London, and if I turn up enough sources for an article, I'll ask for a WP:REFUND. Richard3120 (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2017 (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.