Talk:A Partial Print

Contesting Speedy Deletion

This page was created because the other two studio albums by the band Tiger Lou have articles, yet their latest work, A Partial Print did not have its own article. If you feel this article should be deleted, meaning that you do not think Tiger Lou is a notable band, then one should be consistent and delete the articles for their other albums, and possibly the article on the band. If the band is seen as notable enough to be on Wikipedia, its albums should have articles as well. See their other albums: Is My Head Still On? and The Loyal. -Jondude11 (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Each article must stand on it's own. The notability of the subject must be verified in the article. I've no comment on the other articles, but just because a band can jump the hurdle of notability it does not mean that everything that band produces is notable. --Michael Johnson (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Then at the very least you have tagged it incorrectly. I suggest you read the criteria for A7 which I have included:

quote: An article about a real person, an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people and organizations themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software and so on. The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion. :endquote

Can I suggest you remove the speedy tag and replace it with {{notability}} until you have resolved the issues. Trevor Marron (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips folks and for the quick comments. I felt it looked extremely silly that their two albums prior albums had articles but their third album remained a red link. I will research more information on the album: I will find reviews and interviews, and add more information to the article. Would that help? How else can I "prove" its notability? -Jondude11 (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Jondude11, the suggestion re the removal of the speedy nomination was to Micheal Johnson, as the creator of the article you can not and must not remove it. I have reverted your last edits for now, but if MJ does not comment here shortly I will edit the article and remove the speedy tag. As for Notability you can click on the tag once it is fixed to the article and see the guidelines, but generally a third party published review of the album would suffice. Trevor Marron (talk) 23:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, Trevor. I thought the suggestion was to me. I will take your advice. Thank you! -Jondude11 (talk) 23:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

OK well he has not come back. So I will remove the speedy nomination and add the General Notability tag. Trevor Marron (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for everything, Trevor. I had some trouble with another article that was subject to speedy deletion even though I contested it. On that one I felt no one took it seriously. I thank you for taking this contesting seriously. :) -Jondude11 (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with that. However with the volume of non-notable stuff that does come through, it is important that editors do add sources especially when notability is not obvious. --Michael Johnson (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)