Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kish Mauve (EP)

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 Kish Mauve. The basic information of note can be preserved there. bd2412 T 16:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kish Mauve (EP)

[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)

Not notable EP album (no studio album) with 3 songs by band on borderline notability. Article is stub, lack reliable sources for album (one archived source of "sundaybest.net/site/releases" is not enough). Create by User:Cazxiro, no active user. Album totally fails of Wikipedia:Notability and WP:NMUSIC. Part of data I integrated with main article of band. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 13:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contested prod as I feel the nom does not make an adequate case (also this appears to be related to a content dispute at 2 Hearts (2007 song)); notability of the band is not the question here, though I feel there are enough sources available to show that they are; "no studio album" (?) doesn't mean anything, and the fact that the article is a stub and was created by a now inactive user are not grounds for deletion. PC78 (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong, there is no relationship with our dispute in another discussion. Please focus on facts and not personal trips. This is not notable EP album (no studio album) with 3 songs by band on borderline notability, album totally fails of Wikipedia:Notability and WP:NMUSIC. And now, this article is rubbish - stub, lack of reliable sources etc. It does not matter that you can fix it - in this form is to delete and.... it does not make sense to repair it because does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 14:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have "focused on facts", there is nothing personal here. You have recently edited several articles related to Kish Mauve including the aforementioned song (which features on this EP) so I don't see how you can say it is not related. I am not familiar with this band or their music so I offer no further comment with regard to notability, but we do not delete articles simply because they are short and lack sources - if we did we would have to delete half of Wikipedia. That is not what notability means. PC78 (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not just about the issue of hopeless article and lack reliable sources, the most important argument is not notable album and does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia. You came here for me. You instead of understanding the arguments in intro, you prefer trolling. Please stop trolling and spamming here. Wikipedia:Notability is wide consensus of Wikipedia, if you can not accept it - go away from Wikipedia. Your trolling and spamming will not be accepted here. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 15:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Trolling and spamming"? I have done no such thing - please be civil and assume good faith. The problem is not that I don't understand your argument for deletion, it's that you don't really make one. Simply saying it isn't notable is not enough. PC78 (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First: you are watching my editions - I have evidence, you came here for me, you are not here accidentally, these are fact and you know it. Second: article does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Notability is wide consensus of Wikipedia, you must accept rules and standards of the Wikipedia or go away from Wikipedia. Your posts mean only this: "I have somewhere the Wikipedia:Notability and I always oppose for you". Wikipedia is wrong place for you, sorry. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 15:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In the argument above, PC78 made valid calls for proper deletion arguments, which the nominator countered with accusations rather than reasoned responses. The following are NOT reasons to delete: being a stub, having been created by a non-active user, having too few references (see WP:NEXIST), being an EP (which by the way IS a studio album, just a short one). The nominator seems unfamiliar with the finer points of WP:NMUSIC, which do not support deleting the article for any of the reasons given. The article surely needs some cleanup and expansion, but this deletion nomination should be withdrawn as unsupportable and possibly uncivil. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520: I would like to remind you that: "being a stub, having been created by a non-active user, having too few references, being an EP" are just additives in my description. The main argument is notability and I wrote about it two times (see above)! The article can be improved (add reliable sources, add more text and other) but article does not meet the requirements of the Wikipedia. Not every album is encyclopedic, before you start writing tips, I advise you to read the guidelines because you're making a fuss. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 20:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you have "written about" notability "two times", it is only via the repeated statement Notability is wide consensus of Wikipedia. As far as I can determine, you have said the album is not notable because notability is something Wikipedia cares about. That is not an explanation of why it's not notable. See WP:JNN. Also note that I have not yet voted, but I do see the need for better arguments before I vote. That's not "making a fuss" unless I am the latest member of the conspiracy that you see all around you. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520: - see below. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 01:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did a fair bit of searching and was able to find a couple sources not currently included in the article. a brief review of the EP from dmcworld.net and an article in The Times. The latter is sadly behind a paywall, but based on the visible content and the excerpt shown in Google search results, it seems likely to be relevant (note that the article's date is also a week or so after the EP's release date). Not sure if these would be considered sufficiently significant or reliable to sustain notability (maybe it depends on what's in that Times article). Dindon~enwiki (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NALBUMS say: "An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article. Conversely, an album does not need to be by a notable artist or ensemble to merit a standalone article if it meets the general notability guideline. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting. Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Recordings show 7 points - requirements of the Wikipedia for music articles, in brief: "Has been the subject (red. not just a mention somewhere) of multiple (red. many sources), non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published (red. no page of band, records, label, producer etc), and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it." Other stipulations: appeared on music chart, certified gold or higher, nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award, recording was performed in a medium that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, The recording has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.

So, this album does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia. In addition, a simple sentence of Wikipedia:Notability works here: "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article". Separate article of this album does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia, the question is only one: to delete or to merge with main article (and create redirect)? Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 01:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See this edit: [1] in which Subtropical-man accused me of trolling and then deleted it. He has also accused PC78 of trolling, which is still visible above. Neither of us actually voted to keep the article yet, and mere comments have been subjected to baseless accusations of foul play. The nominator is engaged in uncivil behavior and is also bludgeoning the process. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can other editors please give an opinion on this?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kish Mauve. Maybe it's notable, but the more important point is that it is unlikely to ever be sourced well enough to expand beyond permastub status. So, per WP:NOPAGE, redirect to the band's article, preserving the history so that anyone can merge anything useful to the band page without further AfD involvement. Bakazaka (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NALBUM and there is little to discuss beyond that, aside from arguments that are variants of WP:ILIKEIT. There are simply no sources verifying notability. Nothing can be merged, as has been with obvious kindness suggested, either, because unsourced material is not moved elsewhere but deleted outright. -The Gnome (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/ReDirect. No single material RS on this album; any RS I could find was about the band and their songs and not this album per se [2]. Spreading the actions of a borderline WP:GNG band over several WP articles (e.g. there is a Template Box at the bottom of a series of Kish Mauve articles) is the wrong approach. Have one central article on the band and anything that is struggling with GNG (e.g. songs or albums) should be added/merged to that article to consolidate references. In a decade's time, these articles are going to get deleted as their thin/weak sources drop away and interest wanes, so consolidation will help preservation of the band. Britishfinance (talk) 13:31, 14 February 2019 (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.