Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rootless Cosmopolitans

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. Any decision to rename this article may happen through the normal process. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rootless Cosmopolitans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

1990 album. Lacks SIGCOV in reliable sources and does not meet NALBUM. Author contested PROD and added sources. Here is my analysis of the sources in the current version:

1. artist's website
2. looks like a SPS, not RS
3. interview with the artist
4. may be significant coverage, but is a dead link
5. brief mention, not SIGCOV
6. one-man website/blog, not RS

Before I PRODed this, I looked on Google Books and could only find trivial mentions. So, at best one source that would count towards establishing notability.

If not deleted outright, it should be redirected to the artist. buidhe 04:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have updated the Allmusic album review to its current location (item 4 in the analysis above). AllyD (talk) 09:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Updated: with probably the google books reference you alluded to, he did call it a "notable record" if you cared to look DISEman (talk) 11:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: In the analysis above, the nominator acknowledged that Brian Olewnick's Allmusic review could be significant coverage: I think it is. The album also received a (lukewarm) review by Tony Herrington in The Wire (issue 76, pages 53 & 55) and also appears to feature in the same magazine's Albums of the Year for 1990 (in issue 82/3) though my access to my copy to check what was said there has been thwarted by my just-pile-em-high filing system. Add to these the Christgau brief-mention and the Giddens review identified by DISEman and I think there is sufficient for WP:NALBUM criterion 1. AllyD (talk) 12:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, so we have only two sources that potentially give significant coverage: the one-paragraph review from Allmusic (not sure if that counts as significant) and the Wire review. Calling something "notable" is not a substitute for significant coverage, and two sources are usually not enough to keep an article. buidhe 20:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It was a third critical source, the Gary Giddons article which DISEman added since your nomination, which describes it "a notable record". AllyD (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no opinion as to whether this should be kept or deleted, but if it is to be kept it should be under the title Rootless Cosmopolitans (Marc Ribot album) and the current title should be redirected to Rootless cosmopolitan, which is surely the primary meaning that a reader is more likely to be looking for. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes indeed. When I first saw this item in the AfD index I assumed it to be one of those Wiktionary vs Wikipedia debates for an article on the political term. I was surprised to find an album as the primary use. Not something to change during an AfD but if the article survives it should be given a more specific title as Phil Bridger suggests. AllyD (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've added part of a review from The Penguin Guide to Jazz. That and the AllMusic review are enough in themselves to meet WP:NALBUM criterion 1. (On the title, 'Rootless cosmopolitans' redirects to 'Rootless cosmopolitan'; use of the capital 'C' is required to get to the album. That seems reasonable.) EddieHugh (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2019 (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.