Talk:List of 2021 albums (January–June)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Death Cab for Cutie EP release date

Came upon this article about Death Cab for Cutie releasing an EP, but according to it the same EP was released for a 24-hour period on December 24th last year. I see that the EP isn't listed on the List of 2020 albums article either, but I figured I should ask: which article does it belong to? I think it should be listed either way, but is it technically a 2020 release even though it was only temporarily available at the time? Does this constitute a reissue? Or because it's only indefinitely available now, perhaps it belongs on this article. Thank you for your thoughts! QuietHere (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

It should be listed in the 2020 album list. The rule for the list is the first release date is when to list the album. Many albums have multiple release dates in various countries, and people were listing all the release dates in the infobox. Wikipedia addressed that with the album release section in the infobox, and these lists follow this rule, listing only what is the first release date. Mburrell (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

That sounds pretty definitive to me so let's go with that! Thanks! In order to avoid any confusion, I should note here that it appears the NME article made an error, DCfD's discography page and a Rolling Stone article both say the EP actually came out December 4th, and that's where I'll be putting it instead. QuietHere (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Double-listing for multiple releases

In one of my most recent edits (Seen here.), I added two entries for two different announced EPs from the band Of Mice & Men, the latter of which was promptly removed. My edit was based on a precedent set by the 'List of 2020 albums' article where there were two entries for two different announced Brockhampton albums (Seen here.). I don't remember a time where one of the BH entries was removed for the same reason that the OM&M one was. As far as I know (Bit of a pain to have to check but trust me on this), both of those entries remained on the page through the end of the year, at which time the 'Unscheduled and TBA' section was removed from the page altogether. That seems to set a precedent to me, yet the edit to this article would suggest the opposite. Which method would be preferred in the future? Should there be only one entry for multiple unnamed/undated releases from the same band? Obviously if any of them are named and/or dated, those should be listed separately. I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with that. QuietHere (talk) 12:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@QuietHere: Generally, we should base everything off of sources. A source says the name of the album? We add it in. A source confirmed the release date? We add it in. As well, if a reliable source confirms that an artist is due to release two EPs, we add that in. The 2020 BH example had a source that said "Brockhampton is scheduled to release two albums this year" or something like that. I’m all for it being added back in, as long as the source is reliable. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 12:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I never noticed that one of the listings was removed, but I had considered adding in the second EP in the TBA table. On the other hand, I also considered deleting the whole Of Mice & Men listing, because all the sources just stated "hinted at", so no source was stating there will positively be 3 EPs by Of Mice & Men. So I compromised and kept the one listing and did not add the other. Mburrell (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding rowspans

In a message on my talk page this evening, User:Mburrell gave their thoughts on why rowspans probably shouldn't be utilized in these articles, and I figure that info belongs on this page as well. Personally, I'm fully on board with what Mburrell's saying, but I'm curious if there are any differing opinions. QuietHere (talk) 06:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Wrong Release Dates

We all know that albums get delayed unexpectedly, get released early or just don't get released on the day they're supposed to without any notice. Some examples that I can note on this list: Ashnikko's - mixtape got released sooner Accept, VanJess, slowthai - albums got delayed

So far, their dates have all been corrected, but I'd like to ask if there's anyone who checks if the albums that were supposed to be released already have actually been released (and if they were released on the dates the list says).

I've been thinking about doing a quick Google search of all the albums in this list that have been released to date, or just look them up on music streaming services, but there would be no point of doing it if someone's already on it... Tete40i (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Everyone owns this list, and no-one owns this list. I know of no-one who reviews albums on day of release to check if the album was released on that day, so I encourage anyone who wants to review album releases to review the web and confirm album release.

One thing I noticed when I was updating previous years database was that some information becomes available years later. For example, an album is released in the U.S. on X date, and all the news coverage we have confirms that. Then someone notices it was released in the UK on X-1 date (which is frequently typical), and the date listed in the album article is adjusted, and then the albums should be moved in the lists, but editors of album articles don't always think of that. Then later someone notices that the Japan release was a week earlier, and more adjustments are needed.

I do agree with reviewing album articles for dates. I would even like concerned editors to tackle other years lists as well and check dates, and then do it again much later, and then again, and so on. We are all trying to get everything right, but there are so many moving parts, it takes a team to keep this whole project lurching forward. Mburrell (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Fame & Made Kuti

Apparently, on February 5th, Fame Kuti (who has a wikipedia page) is releasing his album "Stop the Hate", and his son, Made Kuti (who doesn't have a wikipedia page), will release his album "For(e)ward". The thing is, that these two albums will be also released together, by the name of "Legacy +", which was already added to this list. My question is, should the list feature both "Stop the Hate" and "Legacy +" in it; should it only feature one of these two (and if so, which one); or should it feature the three albums, under the same reference, even if Made Kuti doesn't have its own wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:E159:4300:9044:C37B:81E0:B3C3 (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

First instant of a release is the item to be listed. If Legacy + is a merger of two other albums, then the two other albums should be listed, and not Legacy +. Since Femi Kuti has an article, then the album Stop the Hate should be listed. Since Make Kuti does not have an article, then For(e)ward will not be listed. And since Stop the Hate is being included, that precludes Legacy + from being listed. Good catch. Thank you. Mburrell (talk) 04:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I have changed my mind about the notability of the individual albums. All reviews I can find are about the double album, and the individual album by Femi Kuti appears to be non-notable. Therefore, Legacy + is the primary album to list, as it is notable, which trumps non-notable albums that would not be listed. Mburrell (talk) 05:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Got it, thank you! Tete40i (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Early discussion on splitting the list due to rapid growth

At the rate that List of 2021 albums is growing, it will surge paste half a million characters quite easily this year. While there is no hard and fast rule about the size of articles, there are editors who monitor the size of Wikipedia articles and start agitating as the article size approaches and/or passes half a million characters. Being certain that this list will pass that mark, I thought I would open the discussion for how we want to reduce the size of the article. For the List of 2017 albums we removed many of the citations, but I find citations are the best way to track which albums are notable, and it is hard to hold a line on notability without requiring citations. Other methods could involve splitting the list, which I have been reluctant to do in the past, but suspect we will have to do for this list. Two methods of splitting the list are by subject matter or by date, so either make it albums only, with new lists for EPs and for mixtapes, or split the list into year halves or quarters. I do not want to split the list into nationalities.

I am throwing this discussion open now, in the hopes of getting a good discussion before the size editors start making decisions for us. Please let me know what you all think. Mburrell (talk) 04:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I think splitting it into albums, EPs and mixtapes worked be the most efficient way of splitting it. But what's the problem if it gets too big? Tete40i (talk) 11:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem with list article size, but I edit using a computer and a good internet connection. The people who are into controlling article size are trying to keep the Wikipedia experience an option for the lowest common denominator, so they define their target audience as people using smart phones to read articles or edit articles, or people with limited internet connection, possibly in remote rural areas or on boats with limited bandwidth. I have seen some articles edited by people using cell-phones, so that can be issue. I disagree about the size of the article making it too difficult to edit on a smart phone, but that is one reason why several editors have worked strenuously to keep the article sizes at 500,000 characters or less. Mburrell (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I feel like splitting temporally (Preferably halves, if we really need quarters that's fine but not my favorite option) is the only reasonable option. In my experience, most entries tend to be albums anyway so splitting by format wouldn't reduce the main list by much, and it wouldn't be nearly as convenient to perform that action, having to sort through every individual entry to determine which goes where instead of just picking up and moving the well-defined month chunks. On top of that, (again in my experience), the format split opens up room for arguing whether or not a given project constitutes an album, EP, mixtape, etc. Those terms tend to be more important to marketing nowadays, so they aren't always consistently defined in reliable sources. We could attempt to draw our own definition for our purposes, but strictly enforcing that across multiple articles sounds like more of a hassle than it's worth. As for "subject matter", you would need to explain what that even means before I begin considering it, but it already sounds like even more of a hassle than format honestly.

I'm also in favor of removing the genre column, maybe even the record label column. The former tends to be difficult to get reliable sources for because a lot of the articles we use just don't use "official" genre labels that can be tied back to WP articles. I've always found that column annoyingly sparse and troublesome to fill so I could live without it. Record labels aren't nearly as difficult in that regard, but it's still space we could spare if we need it. QuietHere (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Another editor, AnotherBeliever, agrees with you completely about the genre column, and I disagree with you and him. My compromise with that user was to be as strict as possible about genre listings for the first six months that an album has been in existence, requiring citation support for the genres in either the album article or on this list. When we were looking at ways to reduce the size of List of 2017 albums, we looked at removing the genre column, and found that removing a full year of genres saved about 17,000 characters. At the rate that we are adding albums, that is 2 to 3 days of current entries. Removing record labels would probably save about 30 to 40 thousand characters. These two removals, plus the inter-month redirects at the top of each month (about 7 to 8 thousand) are options to be considered. I generally resist that because then we would have a very bare list, looking more similar to 2004 in music#Albums released, except with citations. I prefer our more lush lists, and have resisted splitting the lists to the point I fought a heavy war to maintain the List of 2017 albums, but this time I think we are growing too fast, and will have to give in when the wreckers show up on our doorstep.

I also favor splitting by date, trying to see if halves will do it before going to quarters. Mburrell (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I want to add another note about genre listings in the list. While the list is fairly empty on genres now, over time the genres will be filled in. User Redrkr and others a few years back made it a goal to fill in some empty parameters in the older lists, and it will probably happen again. Sometimes you need to forget about the lists being current documents and picture them being historical documents. The lists of albums in their current configuration go from 2005 to 2021, and in the bare bones, no citation format stretch from 1963 to 2004. Earlier than 1963, albums have not been organized by release day, so while the music lists go earlier than 1963, it is only known what albums released in the year. Consider these lists as long term projects. Not everything has to be entered on first pass. Revisit the list in ten years and you will see most of the genres filled in, probably. Mburrell (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Remix Albums

Well, when I started editing more this page I would try to add Grimes's Miss Anthropocene (rave edition), an album with remix versions of her song, and later I found out that it wasn't suitable for this list. But I've got a few questions about whether a remix album should or shouldn't be in this list, here are my two examples. Alt-J, a few years ago, released a remix album of their album "Relaxer". The remix album had remixes of a bunch of other musicians, and was published under the name of "Reduxer". Would it be suitable for this list, since it was published under a different name and it had more than just one remix for each "original" song? Other question is if a musician released a new album consisting of remixes of other musician. Would it make sense to add it to the list, as it could be looked as a "cover" album? Tete40i (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Cover albums are always acceptable, provided proven for notability. I guess the question should be if a remix album is notable enough that you would be willing to create a separate article for the album, that there was enough reviews and news sources and information to show that the album was notable in it's own right, not just as a adjunct to the original album. You don't have to create the album article, although I wish someone would, but every album listed on this list should be notable enough that someone could create an article for that album. As you review album articles, you will see that some have been created without any citations or poorly chosen citations, so as your understanding of appropriate citations comes in line with Wikipedia's, consider whether an album article is truly appropriate. If you don't think you could create an article, then I would suggest the album is not significant enough, notable enough to be included on the list.

I cannot come up with hard and fast rules about which remix albums are appropriate and which are not appropriate, so I would suggest use good judgment and see how others react to the listings. If you disagree with other editors, bring it up on the talk page for further discussion, and see what consensus can be worked out. My rule of thumb is the preceding paragraph, to consider if the album is truly notable and sufficient to stand-alone. Mburrell (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Change date for San Holo album "bb u ok?"" from May 21st to June 4th

I don't want to mess anything up on the page, but San Holo pushed the release date of his album to June 4th. It originally was scheduled for May 21st but announced on Twitter he was pushing it back. Can someone help with this in terms of editing the section? Thank you in advance.

 Done QuietHere (talk) 02:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Lady Gaga

Lady Gaga and Tony Bennett’s next jazz album was already confirmed to come out in spring, so you can add it Fer B21 (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

We need a source proving notability before we add anything to this list. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 01:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Resolved

Gaga + Bennett has since been listed with an appropriate citation. QuietHere (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

RS query involving this article

Just posted this RS query which involves an entry in this article, figured I should link it here. QuietHere (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Demo albums/Alternate recordings

This article now has two PJ Harvey demo albums, both of which, from what I can tell, consist entirely of demo recordings of the same songs that appear on the original releases. Those original releases are from 1998 and 2000, and are both listed at List of 1998 albums and List of 2000 albums respectively, as they should be. But if these demo albums are just different recordings of the same songs from those original albums, does that make the demo albums different enough from the originals to justify their inclusion? We've been consistently removing editors' attempts to add the new Taylor Swift re-recorded album on the grounds that it's not different enough from the original to justify inclusion, and nobody's said anything to the contrary of that yet. So is there anything that makes these PJ Harvey albums different? Or should we remove them (and potentially other demo albums from this and other lists)? QuietHere (talk) 13:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the PJ Harvey demo albums are not notable enough in their own right to stand out from the original releases, and should be removed. Same with other demo albums. Thanks for pointing this out. Mburrell (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Unlocked 1.5 and multiple albums in the same article

@Tete40i: @Mburrell: Per the discussion about remix albums above, I figured the Denzel Curry & Kenny Beats - Unlocked 1.5 listing should've been just fine, especially as I look today and find numerous articles from notable sources covering the album upon its release (And presumably there will be more as reviews come in over the next week or so). Mburrell's explanation there, which I pretty much entirely agree with, makes clear that remix albums shouldn't be removed from this list if they are independently notable in such a way that they could have their own article. The article for the original album doesn't talk about the remix album yet, but there's plenty coverage of the remix that an independent article could likely be created for it, though I imagine more likely we'll end up with the remix as an expansion of the original whenever editors get around to making it. Based on that, I think the entry shouldn't've been removed. If there are any disagreements with this, I'd love to hear them.

And while I'm here, I'd like to ask generally: Should an album release that exists on WP as an expansion of another album's article be discounted as independently notable even if it has, as Mburrell put it above, "enough reviews and news sources and information to show that the album was notable in it's own right, not just as a adjunct to the original album." Some albums (e.g. Remix albums, deluxe releases, etc.) are perhaps best kept together with the original album's article just because they are so inextricably tied together (I suppose this could be a debate in itself, but one that would belong elsewhere), unless that expansion becomes so large as to make the entire article unreasonably long and in need of a split. In the case where there isn't a split however, should that be counted against an album's independent notability? I personally believe it shouldn't, but again, if there are any disagreements, I'd love to hear them. QuietHere (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't search enough about Unlocked 1.5, so it was my mistake, I do agree that it is relevant enough.

About your question, I do agree with you, but only about Remix albums. Remix albums include completely new versions of songs. They are new works based on previous songs, and they usually hold a lot of production value and even have different titles besides "remix version". However, I think that deluxe versions shouldn't be considered relevant independently, as they are almost completely tied to the original release. Their concept as always been "same album with a few extra tracks", so most times they are either album reissues or they're just order/collection bonuses released on the same day. Tete40i (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I was just using Deluxe as an example of an album release that usually gets added as an expansion to another album's article rather than it's own article. I agree that they shouldn't be added independently, though I suspect there may be edge cases where the bonus tracks are also released as independent EPs which might be eligible for this list (Sawayama Remixed doesn't have the requisite independent coverage, but think something like that). QuietHere (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that remixes are different enough from the original albums to be considered for a listing on the albums list if notable enough. My example would be the Cowboy Junkies The Trinity Session vs. Trinity Revisited. The album was completely re-recorded, guest musicians were brought in, the songs were re-interpreted. For remix albums, the only question is if the album is notable enough to stand on it's own, and I had thought that Unlocked 1.5 was sufficient for that. For now, it is folded into another article, but it with the right editors and time, it could stand on it's own. Mburrell (talk) 05:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Poll - Should references be removed for album listings that have appropriate album articles? - Discussion happening Talk:List of 2020 albums

Editors and users, there is a discussion happening at Talk:List of 2020 albums#Poll - Should references be removed for album listings that have appropriate album articles? that can affect how these music lists are constructed and maintained, and I would like to invite anyone with an opinion to drop in and join in on the poll.

The listed poll is to determine if the albums lists needs citations for albums listings when the albums have album articles that adequately show the album notability. The purpose of the citations in the list are to show albums are notable, as a screen to prevent non-notable albums from being added to the list. However, the multiple citations add up to a substantial size, so that many of the album lists are in the largest 1000 articles in Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Database reports/Articles by size), and some of the articles have now or in the past been the largest or second largest articles in Wikipedia. For the List of 2017 albums, citations were removed from many of the album listings which reduced the size of the article.

This may be the first of several polls to determine how to alter the lists, if needed, to reduce the size, if desired. All are welcome, for I guarantee that users will be coming from other sources who do not participate in these music lists and view things from a different viewpoint. I would love to see users of these lists contribute their opinion as well. Thanks. Mburrell (talk) 06:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Taylor Swift re-recordings

Fearless (Taylor's Version) has been added to this page too many times to not be worth discussing. I'd like to have a definite reason as to why we're keeping the entry off written down here. Not that I disagree, but I think it'd be useful to have something that can be linked to editors to explain why their edits keep getting undone in this instance. The re-recorded album is clearly independently notable, but it's also mostly not original/previously unreleased material, which is the reason why I support leaving it off, but if there's any further logic behind that, or perhaps even arguments in favor of its inclusion, please leave all that here. QuietHere (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not opposed to listing the re-recorded album on this list. In #Remix Albums, I stated the following "if a remix album is notable enough that you would be willing to create a separate article for the album, that there was enough reviews and news sources and information to show that the album was notable in it's own right, not just as a adjunct to the original album" and "consider if the album is truly notable and sufficient to stand-alone". Reviewing the article for Fearless (Taylor's Version), I think it passes that criteria. If the album was re-recorded and released and no-one cared, then it should not be listed, but in this case it has been re-reviewed by the critics, it has high sales figures, it is notable. Even though they are calling it a re-recorded version, I think there is not much difference between that and being a re-mixed album. I initially resisted because I didn't see much difference, but the album article shows that it stands by itself, not just a adjunct to the original album. Mburrell (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Change date for "Fallen Embers" (Illenium)

Illenium announced that his new album, Fallen Embers, will be arriving on July 16, 2021. Can someone please edit the article (because I don't know how to) to reflect the new update? You can check his Twitter as he announced it himself. Please and thank you.Losipov (talk) 03:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done QuietHere (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Probably time to split the list of 2021 albums into two lists

The List of 2021 albums has grown to the point that it is hitting the technical limit of maximum citations, and even with pruning, it will exceed the limits pretty soon, plus it is reaching the artificial size limit imposed by User:OneTwoThreeIP of 500,000 characters. It is probably time to split the list into two lists, List of 2021 albums (Jan.-Jun.) and List of 2021 albums (Jul.-Dec.), or some other similar title, implying first half, second half, or something. Is anyone interested in tackling this? My recommendation would be to create one of the two lists as new, and to rename this list for the other, in order to keep the history and talk page attached, but maybe a more experienced editor or administrator knows a reason why both articles should be created, and this existing article should become a redirect page, or something like that. Mburrell (talk) 06:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I support this. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 02:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I support this as well. I just removed all the references from the listings that have articles, and it didn't make that much of an improvement. It's also only July, and I assume that the third and fourth quarters will be expanded a lot in the next few months as more albums are announced. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 14:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I originally considered splitting it by quarter, but I think we could also just split the page in half (List of 2021 albums (January-June) and List of 2021 albums (July-December)). Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 16:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Also where did Onetwothreeip mention an article limit of 500,000 bytes. There are currently 4 pages that surpass that limit. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 16:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Blubabluba9990, you would have to wade through the discussion on Talk:List of 2017 albums/Archive 2 to find User:OneTwoThreeIP's philosophy on article size. You would also have to observe Wikipedia:Database reports/Articles by size for three years or so to see that User:OneTwoThreeIP tends to dive in on articles as they approach or grow above the half million mark and starts reducing or splitting articles. Yes, there are articles above the half million mark. Return in a month or two, and those articles will no longer be that size, and there will be new ones, and a month or two after that, those will be knocked down. This is observation over time, not a stated rule. 20:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I never implied it was a stated rule, I was just wondering when Onetwothreeip had said that. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 21:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Album inclusion on this list - Dariacore

There is currently a disagreement between myself and @Skyshifter: about the inclusion of Dariacore by Leroy on this list. The album is supported by one reasonably good citation by Sputnikmusic, which per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources - Generally reliable sources can be considered reliable if sourced from "Use staff and emeritus reviews only, recognizable by tag", which this citation is. However, that appears to be the only citation that satisfies this lists requirement for album notability, which fails this lists criteria for album notability, defined at the top of this list as "having received significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject", this requirement being listed at the top of the article." The album article has other citations, such as Stereogum which reviews a separate mix, The Fader, which includes the album in a list of 50 best album for 2021 which could be considered to showing album notability, but not a distinct article about the album. A web search does not locate significant coverage for the album, which I look for at least three distinct news or review articles for an album. Skyshifter believes the burden of notability has been satisfied. Between the two of us, the album keeps being added and deleted from the list, so I would like to open up this talk section to a discussion of what other users believe is appropriate for keeping or removing the album from this list. Mburrell (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I personally will not insist in readding the album. I think we should wait for the conclusion of Dariacore's AfD. If it is closed as keep, it should be reincluded on the page. Regarding significant coverage, along with Sputnikmusic, I also personally think The Fader's 2021 list is significant coverage about the album, since it does talk about it for a good amount in my view. Skyshifter ^talk 21:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I was unaware of the AfD for the album, but that does not change my position. Even if the AfD is closed for keep, I will re-state that the album lists require significant coverage (the album has two reasonably decent citations for coverage, but requires at least one more good article, and preferably two more), and just having an album article does not confirm sufficient notability to be included in the lists. This album is not an insignificant album, and I think it might survive the AfD, but without the discovery of additional reviews or news articles, it is unqualified to be included in the album lists per the lists established criteria for inclusion. The album lists occasionally hit size limits and many are in the top 1000 largest articles on Wikipedia, which is why a rigourous notability criteria was developed in order to provide a threshold limit to albums being added, and my evaluation is that this album falls on the wrong side of the inclusion criteria. Mburrell (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The page says the albums should be "original" and "notable". If the article is kept, it means it's notable, no? "having received significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject." Not sure if it's the same interpretation here, but on ptwiki we interpret this as "at least two sources, because 'sources' is plural", so 2 sources is the minimum to be considered notable. The talk page does talk about "usually 3 sources", I don't know if this "usually" means it could be less or it could be more. I also think there are some entries here that don't fit the criteria, from what I've looked, so I think it's unfair that an album with an article, that created a genre and was considered one of the best albums of 2021 wouldn't be included. But let's wait for the result of the AfD, so we can better discuss the topic. Skyshifter ^talk 10:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, would you have any examples of albums with an article that weren't added to the list because of the inclusion criteria? Not talking about articles with only a Discogs source for example, I'd like to know if there's an article similar to Dariacore which wasn't included. Skyshifter ^talk 10:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)