Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nosferatu Helstar (album)
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 of the debate was keep. --Ezeu 06:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Nosferatu Helstar (album)
non-notable album Bennie Noakes 20:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Can you AFD categories? There's a Category:Helstar that doesn't need to be there, in my opinion. Bennie Noakes 20:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep, notable bands get notable albums. However, this should be moved to a proper title. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 21:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable at this time. Belongs in article about the band itself; the band's article is pitiful and could use some expansion and improvement. No need to break this into a separate article. Ande B
- Why would we merge album information to this band when the overwhelming standard is that albums get separate pages? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Reply If I have misunderstood the standards then my comment to that effect should not apply although the album itself does not appear to be notable in any way. I've been puzzled as to why inconsequential albums show up with their own pages when their rather inconesquential performers have bare bones coverage. Can you direct me to the page that expresses this preference? Ande B 23:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if there's a page that expresses the preference, it simply is the common practice, and one I personally see no reason to abandon here. The infoboxes on album pages alone contain a worthwhile chronology on the bottom that would be broken up by adding it to the band page, for example. There's certainly plenty we can do to expand Helstar without resorting to removing otherwise decent and useful stubs. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- While not official policy, it has been proposed that editors create the artist article first, then the albums, then (if notable) the songs. GentlemanGhost 07:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if there's a page that expresses the preference, it simply is the common practice, and one I personally see no reason to abandon here. The infoboxes on album pages alone contain a worthwhile chronology on the bottom that would be broken up by adding it to the band page, for example. There's certainly plenty we can do to expand Helstar without resorting to removing otherwise decent and useful stubs. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Reply If I have misunderstood the standards then my comment to that effect should not apply although the album itself does not appear to be notable in any way. I've been puzzled as to why inconsequential albums show up with their own pages when their rather inconesquential performers have bare bones coverage. Can you direct me to the page that expresses this preference? Ande B 23:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Keep per Badlydrawnjeff. I know that this isn't policy, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Music states that albums should get their own page. If the band only had one album, then I could see merging this back to their article, but they have several albums. --Joelmills 00:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Although the article on Helstar is indeed woefully small, I don't think that invalidates the usefulness of the album article. It should be renamed, though, to Nosferatu (Helstar album) as Nosferatu (album) is already taken. And it looks like we need to create a disambiguation page for Nosferatu in general. GentlemanGhost 06:58, 4 June 2006 (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.
