Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discography

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discography

After removing a big chunk of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, we're left with a one paragraph dicef and a huge bibliography. I can't see this being expanded beyond a dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 20:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable musical term. All problems here are editorial and the article should not have been taken to AFD. Dalejenkins |[1] 21:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think it's expand-able beyond a dicdef? Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 21:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notable musical term yes, but with an obvious etymology and an uncontroversial meaning. Hairhorn (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a much longer article in this encyclopedia. Zagalejo^^^ 21:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An encyclopedic topic. Of course it can be inproved and expanded. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another example of a proper encyclopedic treatment here. ReverendWayne (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has potential, there is more than just a definition required, I can see this being filled out with techniques/methods etc. Slightly WP:OTHERSTUFF, but biography is an example of what discography could be considered as aiming towards. Bigger digger (talk) 10:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly an encyclopedic subject, although the existing article isn't what it should be.--Michig (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dicdef and directory, both things that fail WP:NOT. If someone thinks he or she can make an encyclopedia article about it, hey, he or she can click on the red link after this nonsense is deleted and make a new article like all new articles can be made. In the meantime, the current content is nothing but policy violations. DreamGuy (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More content than I expect from a dictionary. Enough content as a basis if someone wants to write a good article about this. More than 2000 articles and discussions links to Discography. --Ilion2 (talk) 08:09, 22 May 2009 (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.