Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guys and Dolls Like Vibes

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 keep. Per the discussion, the article has been greatly improved since nomination and now satisfies NALBUM. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guys and Dolls Like Vibes

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NALBUM or even WP:GNG. Standard brief overview in AllMusic, which by itself does not meet the Wikipedia threshold for notability. Beyond that there are some brief or passing mentions in a couple of books (not used in the wiki article). The article is simply a listing of songs and personnel, and since notability is not inherited, it appears to violate WP:NOTCATALOG. -- Softlavender (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Eddie Costa or with Eddie Costa discography.Vorbee (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ - To Eddie Costa discography. There simply is nothing practical to merge since this stub is basically a track listing. The passing mentions and a brief AllMusic review do not cut it for GNG.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot verify most of the sources, but I will AGF and presume that they are more than passing mentions. Considering that the album is from the 1950s, I understand that not as many sources are readily available and thus can weakly support keeping the article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"weakly"? You can find the Billboard review by searching here. You can read the Wilson review here, although citing the physical book looks better. The others, except Penguin, are not hard to find, even if Google books at first doesn't show the required text. So: 4 reviews cited, at least 2 more readily available (all from leading authorities), and paragraphs in books published by Yale and the OUP. Pretty much any 2 of them would be enough for "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it." EddieHugh (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has now been expanded beyond the All-Music Guide review. Probably other sources available given two of the sidemen are much better known than the leader. Philip Cross (talk) 10:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added reviews from Billboard and The Penguin Guide to Jazz. That gives it reviews in three major publications, which is more than enough for WP:NALBUM criterion 1. I expect that it's covered in biographies (books) of Bill Evans too, but I don't have access to them. (Update: just clicking on "books" in the links above shows that there's enough... reviews in Gramophone and DownBeat are clearly visible.) EddieHugh (talk) 10:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Added some information from the Peter Pettinger 1998 biography of Bill Evans. Possibly not enough on its own to demonstrate this album can be considered notable enough for inclusion. But the issue is clearly in the process of being resolved. Philip Cross (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Thanks. Now up to 6 good sources, without bothering with DownBeat and Gramophone. It's tempting to keep going and then give it a GAN, but it's not a priority. EddieHugh (talk) 13:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The AfD inspired editors to dig up some quality sources and the article has been improved to at least the level of a quality stub. That's a fine outcome to this process. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well referenced article on album with significant performers. I am saddened that the original proposers did not try and improve the article themselves before their AfD. No Swan So Fine (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article now meets notability requirements. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the substantial sources and article improvements now established. Meets the first criterion of WP:NALBUM. AllyD (talk) 08:38, 19 June 2018 (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.