Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C1N1K1LL 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 delete. J04n(talk page) 00:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C1N1K1LL discography[edit]

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

Discography of a band whose article was speedied A7 for lacking any substantive claim of notability under WP:NMUSIC, and whose sole album with an article was then speedied A9. Accordingly, I then speedied the discography — but was then challenged by one editor on the grounds that as neither A7 nor A9 makes any specific provision for artists' discographies, there were no valid speedy grounds at all (not even the snowball clause was acceptable) and the discography thus had to be kept for seven full days of process wonkery even though my opponent fully agrees with its deletion.
This discography, for the record, is every bit as unsourced and unsourceable as the band's article was (reliable source coverage at big fat zero on Google), and fails to even name the chart the albums purportedly attained their claimed chart positions on — and because artists do not automatically get standalone discography articles as separate topics from their main article, but rather get that treatment only when the main article is long enough to need spinoffs for size management purposes, it should never actually have been left to stand alone as a separate article in the first place. So if it had been handled properly, i.e. redirected back to the band article, it would have become speediable as a G8 (redirect to a nonexistent page).
So I guess my real question has less to do with whether this is deletable or not — that's a no-brainer — and more to do with asking whether there's the will to formally establish a consensus that speedy deleted artists' discography articles should become eligible for speedy under A9 if the artist and all of the albums in the discography are all redlinks, or under A7 on the grounds that it's not really a true standalone topic in its own right, so much as a formatting choice that we sometimes apply to the band's article, and is thus really a subpage of the deleted article rather than an independent topic. Bearcat (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't the proper venue for this Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion? Not sure why you've restored a deleted page and launched a deletion discussion when you've said yourself it's a foregone conclusion. Adam9007 (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia process essentially requires admins to reverse their own speedy deletion, and take it to another forum for wider discussion, if somebody expresses an objection after the fact. Bearcat (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that case delete per original PROD. As I said, it's very much a borderline case, with Boing! said Zebedee: thinking this meets A9, and me A7 because it's indirectly about the band itself, and that this should really have been on the band's article, which is A7-able. I'm not sure if A9 covers discographies but apparently not. Discographies are basically catalogues of an artist's albums or songs, whereas I think A9 only covers individual albums or songs, though I could be wrong. But I suppose this is technically outside CSD's scope because, as stated, neither specifically state anything about discographies; by default they're not quite about albums/songs (A9), and not quite about a band or singer (A7). They're sort of in-between. Though I suppose that had the band's article been kept, it wouldn't have been an A9 in any case. Adam9007 (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to say that the article is not about a discography; it is a discography, so I agree that they should be speediable if the artist and the albums are redlinks. But under A7 or A9 I'm not sure. Adam9007 (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete of course, and I would support the modification of A9 to include discographies when neither the band nor albums (including singles) have Wikipedia articles. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for obvious reasons LavaBaron (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the artist and albums are not notable then the discography has no valid reason to be kept. Daft that A9 does not cover as its only a grouping of the musical recording that are covered. KylieTastic (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2016 (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.