Talk:Fa La La (album)

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

RfC: should the article Fa La La (album) be converted into a redirect to the artist?

Consensus was to redirect. -- Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The sources given in the article as it stands don't seem to substantiate a notability claim for the album independent of the artist— should the album's article be made into a redirect? KDS4444Talk 04:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not certain this album warrants a standalone article. Here is a review of its references:
    1. is a listing from the New York Foundation for the Arts Artist Directory— it is a summary of the album, but it is a piece with no author and seems to lack independence from the album's artist. Also, it is part of a directory, which is explicitly mentioned as a kind of source which is to be treated as WP:ROUTINE and does not contribute to a notability claim.
    2. is a link to a YouTube video
    3. comes from the website meloracreager.space, which lacks independence
    4. has the same problem
    5. is a discussion for a previous album, not this one
    6. also comes from meloracreager.space
    7. is an interview with the artist about the previously released album in which this album is only mentioned in the very last sentence and then only in passing.

In light of all this, I had converted this article into a redirect to the artist, but the redirect was subsequently undone. KDS4444Talk 05:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect Does not seem to meet WP:NALBUMS or the WP:GNG. All sources seem to be self publishedSee below, and nothing seems to suggest that it has charted. Wugapodes (talk) 03:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is a work-in-progress for a release that hasn't even been properly promoted yet. Creager is still touring the last Rasputina album, but when that tour in finished - next month - we should start getting decent interviews. Given the extremely-limited release of the first volume, it was pretty unlikely that the album would get any Rolling Stone features or the sort, and I doubt such a release is even eligable to chart. But maybe I was a tad too overly-specific with the content of the article. None of those problematic sources are used as references for anything controversial, and most of them could easily be removed:
  • The Youtube video is merely there to source the original band-members
  • The meloracreager.space links source very-specific details: i.e., the new mix of "Murder By Makeup", the limited-to-10-copies CD release
In the meantime, I've made this edit, which includes an interview with the Albuquerque Journal which specifically focuses on the project, as well as a brief synopsis from The Grey Eagle. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia can't predict the future. We can't say whether something will be notable in a few months. All we know is that right now it does not meet the notability guidelines and so should not be included. While the new sources are good, I still don't think they satisfy the GNG because the focus of an interview, even if it touches on the album, is about the artist so it doesn't support the idea that the album is notable independent of the artist. The Grey Eagle coverage seems to be WP:ROUTINE as it is a description for a concert. Wugapodes (talk) 05:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The piece from the Albuquerque Journal is about Rasputina, not "about" Fa La La (though the album is mentioned in passing in the second paragraph). The Grey Eagle piece is titled "Rasputina" and while Fa La La is mentioned in the introductory sentence, it isn't mentioned again anywhere and the piece is prettly clearly "about" Rasputina, not this album (if you handed the article to someone who had never read this Wikipedia article or heard of Rasputina and then asked them to tell you what it's about, they would tell you, "It's about a woman who goes by the name Rasputina and plays the cello"— they probably wouldn't tell you, "It's about an album called 'Fa La La'"). KDS4444Talk 22:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but your arguments at this point seem rather spurious and pedantic. The AJ and Gleneagle references contain a hell of a lot more information than you are trying to ascribe to them. In fact, they talk more about the project than Rasputina. This article now has four references (out of nine) which can be called third-party and WP:RS. And, as explained in my response above, the other five references are there to source very-specific details - which could even be removed if challenged, with no great loss to the article as a whole. One could, at best, argue for the addition of an "additional references" tag at the top of an article. But this article is now clearly beyond the point of a redirect. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be forgetting a very important part of WP:GNG, Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail. None of those sources address the topic directly or in detail. Existence is not notability. Wugapodes (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the Albuquerque Journal source?
That's a pretty major chunk of the entire article there, and arguably the primary topic of the article - since everything else is either a means of leading in to the subject of FaLaLa or reaction to how the project effects other Rasputina works. Also note that myself and the below user - Lapadite77 - have a long and quite recent history. So his contribution can be taken with a bucketload of salt. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What you've done there is you've presented five paragraphs as a single paragraph with the mention of "Falala" as the opening sentence. In fact, the text reads like this:
When read like this (i.e., as it was originally written), "Fa la la" can be seen as a passing mention in the overall piece, not the lead sentence of a major paragraph. This doesn't feel like a good-faith argument, it feels deceptive. I understand your desire to retain the article, but an approach like this doesn't help. You have argued (above) that the Albuquerque Journal piece specifically focuses on Fa La La, when this simply isn't true— it focuses on Rasputina, whose notability I am not questioning, and it mentions Fa La La along the way. This is why I feel the article should be a redirect: it simply isn't notable (yet) independent of the artist. KDS4444Talk 05:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno. You're basically arguing over space bars at this pointy point. Spaces or not, those five sentences clearly refer to the project. So... I don't really know where we go from here. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Completely forgot about this. You can redirect now, @KDS4444:. Unlike others, I am prepared to say that consensus (two genuine user votes to my one) is against me on this. I'd redirect the article myself, but I don't know how. I'll recreate this article when and if more third party sources become available (hopefully when Part II is released after the new year). Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Content

Why is there no content about this album? I came here looking for such, and none was to be found. Terrible, and unencyclopedic! 173.88.246.138 (talk) 07:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Fa_La_La_(album)"