Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firecracker EP

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shawn à Montréal (talk | contribs) at 12:28, 3 March 2017 (Updating nomination page with notices (assisted)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Firecracker EP (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)

Contested redirect and PROD. Fails notability, either WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. Redirect was contested so I suggest a complete deletion unless there is evidence that there are a lot of page views. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Author Keep/Merge/Procedural Close. This is the wrong venue for the action the nominator is attempting to accomplish. He first redirected the article to the artist page; I reverted and suggested a merge to the artist article or to a unified discography article, since the current article is composed of encyclopedic discographical information, even if it's probably not enough to merit a stand-alone article (under current consensus rules). Rather than support a merge, the nominator moved on to PROD and now AfD the article. But deletion isn't a sensible action to take; even if the content is merged, it would still be desirable to leave a redirect to the artist discography. Chubbles (talk) 07:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I wrote on my talk page, when you moved the discussion from your talk page to mine against the edit notice on my page, you're welcome to move the unsourced content to wherever you want. The deletion discussions don't preclude that. What's not sensible is keeping an article that fails notability guidelines around just so someone can some day merge the content somewhere. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • From whence this "move it or lose it" demand? I fail to see why the nominator feels justified in making demands of me as a volunteer under threat of deletion. I don't feel compelled to execute the merge myself, though he is welcome to do it. In any case, deletion is not a legitimate course of action to take here even if the article is judged non-notable; merging is, in that case. Chubbles (talk) 07:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]