Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvest discography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. If individual albums are demonstrably notable, then pages can be created on them. However, a discography as suggested by WP:MUSTARD may consist of album names only, as are already listed at Harvest (band), and the general consensus seems to be against a standalone detailed track listing etc. MastCell Talk 20:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harvest discography

Harvest discography (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is a discography for a Christian band. The band article has essentially one editor, User:Jamielang77. This discography has one editor, User:Jamielang77. There are very few inbound links for Harvest (band), all added by User:Jamielang77. User:Jamielang77 has some tens of edits, all to Harvest (band), adding links to that band from other articles, and adding this discography. In short, then, this is creeping fandom. This article is entirely unnecessary, adding a level of detail well beyond what might reasonably be justified. Cruftbane 11:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep
For reference: I am the creator of the article.
User:Cruftbane failed to note that this is a notable Christian band, as established in the Harvest article's recent AFD discussion.
WP:MUSTARD states that "Pages on performers should have discography sections."
A comment that was made before in the Harvest article's peer review is that the article reads like a discography, instead of like an encyclopedia article, if the full discography section is included. I feel that the creation of this discography page helps to reduce the size of the main article, while still providing valuable information.
As shown by WP:MUSTARD alone, the discography article is not "entirely unnecessary" and does not add "a level of detail well beyond what might reasonably be justified."
Jamie L.talk 14:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. If a band is notable enough for an article, then that band's discography is as well, especially if that discography would make the main article excessively long if it was placed there. wikipediatrix 16:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and Delete per nom. Indeed, pages on performers should have discography sections. I see nowhere where discography articles are mandated. As it happens, putting this in the main band article would not make it excessively long, and as a group that disbanded twelve years ago, it isn't as if much more is likely to be written.  RGTraynor  16:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment re: the statement "I see nowhere where discography articles are mandated," there is the statement in WP:MUSTARD's discography section that "If a simple system cannot accommodate an artist's entire discography, a subpage (preferably titled "<Bandname> discography") should be created using summary style."
Jamie L.talk 16:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply: True enough. What do you fancy there is about this band's discography that can't be accommodated by a simple system ... for instance, the one that comprises the article under AfD discussion?  RGTraynor  20:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply What constitutes a complex discography? Is it one with more information re: the label, producer, band members, album histories, etc.? I can provide some of this information for most of the albums and would like to for the remainder. In other words, can I be given the chance to expand this article? I only created it last week. As it stands now, though, I don't think it would be too hard to simplify it. Jamie L.talk 21:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply: My take on that is that it would place undue weight on the importance on the individual albums; these aren't precisely the White album or The Wall. According to Amazon, the sales rank of Harvest's most popular album is #141,824. [1].  RGTraynor  14:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and Delete per RGTraynor. --Bfigura (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't think the band is notable enough for every track on every album to be listed. The albums are listed on the band's page, so there's no need to merge anything. Seth Bresnett • (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment re: the band not being notable enough for every track on every album to be listed. I've been comparing the discography to the discography of the featured article Slayer. I notice that Slayer's discography does include track listings. Obviously they are a more popular band; but it brings me to my question: at what point is a band "notable enough" to include the track listings with their albums? I would think this track information to be useful, especially on harder to find albums. Jamie L.talk 21:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Response. I think, as a rule of thumb, if an album merits a page of its own, the track listing is justified in a discography. There's a big grey area, but none of the albums we're discussing are notable enough for a track listing. Also, being useful to fans of the band does not justify inclusion, per WP:NOT. Seth Bresnett • (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply. Please see the album criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (music). It states that "If the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." I think it's safe to conclude that if information re: the album's history, label, producer, units sold, etc. could be provided, and if the band was notable, then it would be alright for the album to have its own page, as well as having a separate discography for the albums. Additionally, I wasn't saying that the track information would only be useful to fans; but also to those researching the band (e.g., those individuals researching charted Christian music of Harvest's era). Jamie L.talk 14:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The discography is significant to warrant an individual article.--JForget 01:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete under the assumption that it's not one of the all time great bands, a guess I make because not a single one of their albums is considered notable in WP. For a separate discography for albums that are barely notable themselves seems absurd. DGG (talk) 04:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply. According to WP:N's "General notability guideline", "a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." So far, I know that Harvest's albums "It's Alright Now" and "Only the Overcomers" have received such coverage. I'm sure that more of their albums have as well; but I have yet to do the research. Jamie L.talk 14:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
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.