Talk:Heartwork (The Used album)

This article was nominated for deletion on February 24, 2020. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Post-hardcore Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Post-hardcore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of post-hardcore and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Post-hardcoreWikipedia:WikiProject Post-hardcoreTemplate:WikiProject Post-hardcorePost-hardcore articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

https://www.laut.de/The-Used/Alben/Heartwork-114224

Review of sources as of 2020-02-13

Going back-and-forth with the "I think the sources prove it's notable" and "I don't think the sources prove it's notable" is working very well so I'll provide my analysis as of now. WP:GNG states, "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article". I break it down by those three categories in bold.

Source	Pri/Sec	Reliable	Details	Does this help wit meeting GNG
https://bignoise.com/talent/the-used/	secondary	unknown reliability	short, few details	fails
https://loudwire.com/the-used-maybe-new-songs-after-disrupt-tour/	secondary	reliable	short, few details	fails
https://music.apple.com/us/album/heartwork/1496886925	primary	reliable	track listing only	fails
https://theused.net/	primary	unreliable	n/a	fails
https://twitter.com/BigNoise/status/1136375069561806848	primary	unreliable	no details	fails
https://twitter.com/WeAreTheUsed/status/1225906675397185536	primary	unreliable	no details	fails
https://www.altpress.com/news/the-used-heartwork-beartooth-blink-182-fever-333/	secondary	no author, unreliable	short, few details	fails
https://www.kerrang.com/features/bert-mccracken-and-the-future-of-the-used-we-recorded-26-or-27-songs-that-we-love/	secondary	reliable	WP:ROUTINE	possibly
https://www.laweekly.com/the-used-are-coming-back-for-the-beach/	secondary	reliable	WP:ROUTINE	possibly
https://www.thenoisenest.com/	no idea	no idea	no details	fails
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoGTY0bflh4	primary	reliable only for the fact that the video exists	few details	fails
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCvbyZn24t4	primary	reliable only for the fact that the video exists	few details	fails

Tell me where you think I got the analysis wrong. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

first site is a primary source of the bands record label which is official and reliable. second site is secondary and an interview with the band which is reliable and says when they started recording. third site is secondary and reliable and says tracklist and release date. forth site is bands official site and shows new album art name and promotion. fifth and sixth are official verified twitter accounts of band and label. seventh eighth and ninth is altpress which is a reliable respected magazines tenth is the official record studio site of their record label 11th and 12th is bands official youtube page showing both singles videos and release dates and verifying record laebl and legal info

all sites are official of band and record label or very respected reliable professional sources. all are accepted for wiki policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickybenz90 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the bignoise.com is the band's marketing company. They pretty much all fail. Sorry. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources described above as "short, few details" and the like have been given a subjective judgement from someone who may not have scrolled all the way down. One example is the AltPress story. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources described above as "short, few details" and the like have been given a subjective judgment by an editor who read the whole page unlike doomsdayer520 who seems to not have any clue how to read objectively. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@walter big noise is the bands record label not their marketing company. and @Doomsdayer520 thank you for reviewing the page and understanding. I was away for a while but got back I saw the notification that you have reviewed the page and gave it a official check mark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickybenz90 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected: "Big Noise Music Group is a multi-faceted media company offering artists a robust and creative playground to develop their careers. BNMG combines a label, publishing division and state of the art recording studio facility". Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RS review and preview sources

Lots of sources out now, to clear up any notability debates: