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.
I cannot seem to find reliable indepth coverage--not even an
AllMusic review. There is discogs and music download sites but those certainly do not count toward
GNGTheGracefulSlick (
talk) 02:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - A different and more notable album by the same band has also been nominated for deletion, but this early release really has no
significant coverage beyond basic listings of its existence. Its release can be mentioned as a brief historical fact at the band's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs) 18:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Yunshui雲水 09:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Sam Sailor: Sorry for the delay. I have been a frequent participant in album AfDs for the past few months and have noticed that this recommendation is becoming more frequent. As you said, it's a fair policy-based solution and I have no problem with it for sketchy album articles in general. But while redirects are
cheap and easy, so is reversing them, and instead of just eliminating the data we leave open the chance for someone to bring it back into the light again and again. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs) 23:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Doomsdayer520: No worries.
Alternatives to deletion is an often overlooked part of our deletion policy, and redirects from albums to e.g. an artist article or a discography article are so common we even have a specific
WP:RCAT for these cases: {{
R from album}}.
I can't see anything in the article history that suggests we would have edit warring over a redirect. No need to cross bridges before we come to them. And should a problem arrise, a typical scenario would be an IP editor restoring the article without better sourcing, then a simple solution would be to put the redirect under
WP:PCPP and eventually
WP:SEMI, should the problem persist. In retaining the article's history rather than deleting it, we not only comply with
deletion policy, we also comply with
editing policy, and leave a little window open for someone to source the article adequately, rather than start from scratch.
Even if a case was made for deleting the current article for whatever reason, a Delete and recreate as redirect !vote would be more logical rather than just Delete: this title typically got
20–30 daily views in April, and if it did not exist and someone requested it at
WP:AFC/R, I would not hesitate with creating it as an {{
R from album}}. SamSailor 17:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Sam Sailor: Well explained as always, but a question remains. This collection of policies appears to be so well established that it might as well be the outcome for most, or all, album AfDs. So why have discussions? If someone decides an album article should be deleted, when they hit "XfD" (or they start it manually), should the system just tell them to redirect to the artist's article and see if anyone reverses it later? ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs) 21:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Doomsdayer520: We have these discussions, I think, because Twinkle makes it far too easy to hit XfD, and does not come with a reminder saying "Before nominating an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion" the same way the
edit notice does. I am sure a function could be added to Twinkle that searched for e.g. {{Infobox album}}, found the value in the |artist= parameter and suggested a redirect. Should we make a joint effort to propose such a function at
WT:TWINKLE or
WP:VPT (or whereever the best venue is)? But until then I think we should try to raise awareness about
WP:ATD by participating in the AFDs listed at
Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs. (That is very much a reminder to myself.) ... Perhaps you would reconsider your "delete" !vote in this discussion? Best, SamSailor 07:36, 22 May 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.
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.
I cannot seem to find reliable indepth coverage--not even an
AllMusic review. There is discogs and music download sites but those certainly do not count toward
GNGTheGracefulSlick (
talk) 02:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - A different and more notable album by the same band has also been nominated for deletion, but this early release really has no
significant coverage beyond basic listings of its existence. Its release can be mentioned as a brief historical fact at the band's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs) 18:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Yunshui雲水 09:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Sam Sailor: Sorry for the delay. I have been a frequent participant in album AfDs for the past few months and have noticed that this recommendation is becoming more frequent. As you said, it's a fair policy-based solution and I have no problem with it for sketchy album articles in general. But while redirects are
cheap and easy, so is reversing them, and instead of just eliminating the data we leave open the chance for someone to bring it back into the light again and again. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs) 23:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Doomsdayer520: No worries.
Alternatives to deletion is an often overlooked part of our deletion policy, and redirects from albums to e.g. an artist article or a discography article are so common we even have a specific
WP:RCAT for these cases: {{
R from album}}.
I can't see anything in the article history that suggests we would have edit warring over a redirect. No need to cross bridges before we come to them. And should a problem arrise, a typical scenario would be an IP editor restoring the article without better sourcing, then a simple solution would be to put the redirect under
WP:PCPP and eventually
WP:SEMI, should the problem persist. In retaining the article's history rather than deleting it, we not only comply with
deletion policy, we also comply with
editing policy, and leave a little window open for someone to source the article adequately, rather than start from scratch.
Even if a case was made for deleting the current article for whatever reason, a Delete and recreate as redirect !vote would be more logical rather than just Delete: this title typically got
20–30 daily views in April, and if it did not exist and someone requested it at
WP:AFC/R, I would not hesitate with creating it as an {{
R from album}}. SamSailor 17:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Sam Sailor: Well explained as always, but a question remains. This collection of policies appears to be so well established that it might as well be the outcome for most, or all, album AfDs. So why have discussions? If someone decides an album article should be deleted, when they hit "XfD" (or they start it manually), should the system just tell them to redirect to the artist's article and see if anyone reverses it later? ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs) 21:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Doomsdayer520: We have these discussions, I think, because Twinkle makes it far too easy to hit XfD, and does not come with a reminder saying "Before nominating an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion" the same way the
edit notice does. I am sure a function could be added to Twinkle that searched for e.g. {{Infobox album}}, found the value in the |artist= parameter and suggested a redirect. Should we make a joint effort to propose such a function at
WT:TWINKLE or
WP:VPT (or whereever the best venue is)? But until then I think we should try to raise awareness about
WP:ATD by participating in the AFDs listed at
Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs. (That is very much a reminder to myself.) ... Perhaps you would reconsider your "delete" !vote in this discussion? Best, SamSailor 07:36, 22 May 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.