Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In Tuned Out
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Redirect to Shadow Project. 28bytes (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In Tuned Out (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)
Non-notable album that never charted. The Banner talk 00:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KeepKeep (or at a minimum merge) - Placing more than 2-3 albums within an artist article is cumbersome. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Shadow Project - no significant coverage found, does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. For similar reasons, I went ahead and redirected three of the band's other albums (Dreams for the Dying, From the Heart (Shadow Project album), A Beauty to Fight For). Gong show 02:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Shadow Project. Nothing notable about it. We don't need a full tracklist just because it exists. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable, so no need for an article; and I don't see why we need a redirect for the title of a thoroughly non-notable album. Nor do we need a complete track list for every non-notable album.
And note the Tendentious editing: this is yet another perma-stub on a non-notable album created by User:Jax 0677 just to increase the link count on a pointless navbox. The article was created only after {{Shadow Project}} was nominated for deletion. Jax created 4 stubs on this band's non-notable albums: [1], [2], [3], [4]. If Jax doesn't stop this disruption, the next step will be sanctions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] Keep (or merge LOSSLESSLY)Reply - Per this discussion, the album and its details should (at a minimum) be merged LOSSLESSLY into Shadow Project. Also, WP:BRD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Duplicate !vote struck. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I have lost count of the number of recebt AFDs in which I have seen Jax commenting. In none of them have I seen him pay any attention to the basic notability criteria at WP:GNG, and he remains true to form here.
It's also a pity that Jax yet again misrepresents Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Merging_of_non-notable_albums. There is no requirement to merge, let alone to merge losslessly. The guidance at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#If_the_subject_is_not_notable remains that info on non-notable topics "may be included in other ways in Wikipedia, provided that certain conditions are met". There is definitely no requirements to splat a musician's article with the tracklist of a non-notable album by a non-notable band of which he happened to be a member. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Reply - First of all, I apologize for accidentally voting twice. There is plenty of space in the article for track listings and album details. Therefore, now that it is on Wikipedia and properly sourced, it should not be removed so long as the artist or ensemble is notable. If the article becomes too large, then this falls under a size split. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no requirement to retain all the info on a non-notable topic, and a size split is not grounds for creating an article on a non-notable topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - If it may be added, then if it gets deleted, it shall be merged losslessly, as people in the discussion wanted track lengths to remain. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. It may be added, in which case it may then be removed as excessive detail on a non-notable album. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - If it may be added, then if it gets deleted, it shall be merged losslessly, as people in the discussion wanted track lengths to remain. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no requirement to retain all the info on a non-notable topic, and a size split is not grounds for creating an article on a non-notable topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - First of all, I apologize for accidentally voting twice. There is plenty of space in the article for track listings and album details. Therefore, now that it is on Wikipedia and properly sourced, it should not be removed so long as the artist or ensemble is notable. If the article becomes too large, then this falls under a size split. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- redirect Frietjes (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Shadow Project, absolutely nothing here to merge. J04n(talk page) 11:44, 3 April 2013 (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.