Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebonshire

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 Nox Arcana#Discography. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ebonshire

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Search returns nothing (beyond a rather funny mention on something I didn't know existed [1]). Allan Nonymous (talk) 02:40, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Allan Nonymous (talk) 02:40, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop. You are being destructive and will be reported. Raybeezer (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 03:11, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nox Arcana#Discography: Cited entirely to primary sources, not notable at all. paintdvd ☎ 03:30, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Wouldn't in make much more sense to redirect the 5 Ebonshire EPs to the main Eboonshire album? For example: Ebonshire - Volume 1, Ebonshire - Volume 2, Ebonshire - Volume 3, Ebonshire - Volume 4, Ebonshire - Volume 5 ---> to Ebonshire. I've taken the initiative to copy all the refs from 1-5 into the main article. It seems rather odd that Allan's proposal is to delete only the first and last editions. Raybeezer (talk) 06:38, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would make more sense (and would be policy) to delete the whole lot if notability cannot be established by independent reliable sources. Brunton (talk) 08:58, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In establishing notability, what is the policy on reusing refs from other articles? I noticed that a similar band uses the same 2 to 4 blog refs over and over again, which have nothing to do with the album release, so just thought I'd ask. Raybeezer (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I presume it'd be fine as long as the references themselves meet the usual criteria, such as Wikipedia:NALBUM. Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:16, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all per paintdvd and existing policy. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Nox Arcana. No significant coverage found, and I'm not impressed by the SPA making threats. Ravenswing 21:29, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per Fortuna, Ravenswing & nom. Individual volume articles are also nominated for deletion and have the same problem as the main article, so adding them hasn't resolved the underlying issues. Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:07, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Nox Arcana#Discography per above. I looked for sources but only found storefronts and the usual but unreliable forums, storefronts, and databases. Woodroar (talk) 14:20, 16 November 2025 (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.