Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crooked Boy

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. Malinaccier (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crooked Boy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This article does not satisfy musical notability because it has no charting information and does not otherwise satisfy any of the musical notability criteria, and does not satisfy general notability because it does not refer to significant coverage by third parties. It was unilaterally moved from draft space to article space by the page creator with the edit summary It's been too long, so draftification is not appropriate. The Heymann criterion is to add charting information within six days.

• Draftify as nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and United Kingdom. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ringo Starr discography#Extended plays: Album has been out for multiple months and has not received satisfactory coverage for notability as nominator has stated, nor any requisite charting/sales figures. No point in returning it to drafts if it's just not a notable release. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Google search of "Crooked Boy review" lists 2500 results. Premature to discount existence of good references to be added to article. Rockycape (talk) 08:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have added charting information to the article from Official Charts. It appears that there's only charting information for the title track, but it performed fairly well on the aforementioned chart, so there's no reason to delete it. There was no charting information on the article because it was created before it was released. The article also passes WP:GNG, since there are several articles discussing the EP from different sources. Just because the information isn't there doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Bandit Heeler (talk) 11:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It appears that this nomination was based on events in the draft system, and the nominator likely failed to do the WP:BEFORE search that is required before a deletion debate in order to investigate notability. Also, deciding that notability had not been established just because of spotty sources in the draft version is a violation of WP:NEXIST. The album received widespread reliable coverage the week of its release, and it and one of its songs made the charts in two countries months before this nomination. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. There seems to be significant coverage on reliable sources. However, there may be some confusion if the coverage is due to the notability of the EP, or because of the popularity of the artist Ringo Starr of which notability is not inherited may be invoked. Prof.PMarini (talk) 10:29, 23 July 2024 (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.