Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Storm to Come

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 merge to Van Canto. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Storm to Come

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

Non-notable album. Tagged as unreferenced since Nov 2009, so it has no sources which could be assessed to see whether it meets WP:NALBUM. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or redirect to van Canto at a minimum) - Merging too many album articles losslessly (track listings and personnel included) into the ensemble article would be messy. The number of albums with full track listings and album info to be merged into a musical ensemble or artist page was discussed here. Are we going to now start a mass deletion campaign of all non-notable albums? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- When a topic is not notable, we don't need to aim for a lossless merge; we can summarise. If the topic is not notable, it does not require that much detail, and should not be covered in that much detail.
  In any case, I note that Jax0677 does not make any claim that the topic is notable, let alone evidence that it is notable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Here it says "Users have expressed interest in keeping the tracklists somewhere in Wikipedia". Implied in this is keeping the information about the album, which is what an encyclopedia should do. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Jax, was that a sneaky attempt at misrepresenting the result of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Merging_of_non-notable_albums, or did you just not bother to read the closing statement?
Whichever it it was, Jax has quoted from the closing admin's summary of the discussion rather than from the conclusion, which rejected any blanket approval of that point: "that consensus is to Keep current wording and merge or redirect album articles that only contain an infobox and a tracklist. Given the comments above, such merges should be done in compliance with current policies and guidelines, and when such information is considered notable (or encyclopedic) enough to be included". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Do I recall you saying "If an article would be overwhelmed by listing all the tracks on non-notable albums, the solution is simple: don't list all the tracks"? My point is that neither the track listings nor the pertinent details should not go away, even if the album articles do get merged into the ensemble article. IMHO, if the artist is notable, the song names, times and participants in their albums can be listed somewhere on Wikipedia. WP is WP:NOTCENSORED, therefore the track listings should not be excluded from an artist or ensemble page so long as the artist is considered notable. The track listings and the album titles are information about the artist. Perhaps an AfD should be filed against van Canto? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being silly. There is no question of censorship, just of editorial commonsense. If the material overwhelms an article, some of it may be omitted; but the fact that some editors want to include material which overloads an article is no grounds for creating another article on a non-notable topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - If the article has room, include the track listing in the article. If not, do a size split. The reason that Central Station (Phoenix) has its own article is because the Metro Light Rail (Phoenix) article would otherwise be too large. This is why WP:NALBUMS says "space permitting". --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see any point in removing this page. The referenced discussion about notability did not reach a clear consensus or guideline. Wikipedia is well-known for being a good repository of track listings. Removing this page leaves Wikipedia less complete. Merging the listing to the artist page would make it cluttered and reduce its objectivity. The article is not badly written nor badly formatted, it does not misrepresent information nor causes any confusion or ambiguity with other topics. Fbergo (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Thank you Fbergo! --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply. Se WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Wikipedia is not a collection of track listings or any sort of listings; it is an encyclopedia, which covers notable topics. That may or may not include track listings, and the conclusion of the referenced discussion wads that the inclusion or omission of those listings in any particular article was an editorial decision to be made in respect of each article.
  That discussion did not decide to set aside the notability criteria when considering articles on albums, and your "keep" is invalid because it does not address the notability of the topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply If Wikipedia is not a collection of listings, then half of it is overdue in being deleted. Good luck with that. Fbergo (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply. You're putting the cart before the horse. An article on a notable topic may include an embedded list, if appropriate. However, the desire of some editors to create a listing does not make a topic notable, and does not justify creating a page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca ^talk 01:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting as only a few people have participated without agreement, a few comments from uninvolved editors would be helpful to determine if a keep, merge or outright delete would be most helpful here. ~ mazca ^talk 01:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Van Canto. None of the band's album articles seem to have enough content to make separate articles necessary, and merging them all to the band article would make sense. The personnel is basically the same across the albums - any members coming or going could be mentioned in the prose, and I wouldn't see the track lengths as essential information to merge.--Michig (talk) 07:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Like No Justice, the albums absolutely should be merged losslessly, track lengths included. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge with Van Canto. Frietjes (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: per Jax. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. What exactly are the policy grounds on which you want to keep a wholly unreferenced article? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge losslessly or Keep. One of the services we can easily provide to readers is detailed structured information like this (track lengths per album for all notable bands). Whether this is through separate articles or separate sections should be a matter of format and style, not notability. – SJ + 03:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The A Storm to Come topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Regarding merge, WP:NALBUMS requires that it be "appropriately" merged. Since the proposed information to be merged is not based on coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the A Storm to Come topic, there is nothing to merge and such a merge would not be appropriate per WP:NALBUMS. In particular to the tracklist, it needs to meet one of WP:LISTPURP like any other WP:List or, if an embedded list, each entry needs to be covered in a reliable source that is independent of the A Storm to Come topic per WP:N. Without independent source material to summarize for the aricle, the information in the Wikipedia article appears to go against WP:NOT#FANSITE. Unless those proposing to keep/merge rebut the delete arguments posted, the close likely will delete per WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well there certainly isn't any sort of consensus to delete at present, rough or otherwise. Are you seriously arguing that to have a list of tracks on an album, each track needs to have coverage in reliable sources? That's a rather extreme interpretation. --Michig (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or, as a second choice, delete. Totally unreferenced and doesn't assert notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with van Canto, unable to survive without proper notability assertion. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 03:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Van Canto we don't need to losslessly (I don't know where this word came from) keep every track listing and all contributers for every non-notable ablbum. Someone may look up the album and they should be redirected to the artist's page. J04n(talk page) 16:23, 25 March 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.