Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Young (EP)

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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Young (EP)

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

Non-notable EP. Sources mostly mention EP in passing. The rest of the sources mention either the full album or the singles, which are notable but do not transfer notability to the EP. While this EP charted, there are no third party reviews, nor anything that establishes notability independently of Brett Young's other work. Redirect repeatedly undone by Jax 0677 (talk · contribs) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant to the Brett Young article. All that's here and not in the latter is the tracklisting, which could be added in the 'album details' (sic) column in the EPs section if really needed. --Michig (talk) 08:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - Because the EP and its singles have charted, the EP was notable before the LP was announced. Per WP:NTEMP, 'once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage'. I will attempt to gather additional sources in the next few days, however, an EP is a collection of songs. Therefore, a review of the songs is equivalent to a review of the EP. Using a top down approach, if a song on an album is notable, if the song was originally sung by that artist, that album should be notable (especially if that is the only album on which the song is contained). --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jax 0677: " Therefore, a review of the songs is equivalent to a review of the EP. " Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from songs to album or vice versa. All of these songs are on the full album. The EP has no individually notable content nor reviews of it proper. A merge is acceptable IMO. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have added referenced "Background" and "Critical reception" sections to the article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A breakdown of the sources added by Jax:
- This is about his career, with the EP mentioned only in passing.
- This is about the release of the full album, and only mentions the EP in the first sentence.
- This is a passing mention in a Top 10 list, erroneously being cited as a review. I removed it.
- This only passingly mentions the EP in the context of his full album.
- Most of the "background" content had nothing to do with the EP proper, so I snipped it. The two reviews from Taste of Country and Stage Right may confer notability, but they're borderline at best. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - "Background" is a standard header according to the Manual of Style. I am restoring all of my content so that it can be discussed during the AFD. We now have a sufficiently long album article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jax 0677: Just because it's "standard" doesn't mean you have to shoehorn in filler content that has jack squat to do with the EP proper. The content you've added is more appropriate for either his biography or the full album. There is still the issue that little of the sources address the EP. They're either about him or the full album, not the EP. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a lot of fluff to create what looks like a full-fledged article but after some paring down to sources which discuss this release specifically, there seems to be enough for retention. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 12:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 07:57, 31 October 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.