| Revision as of 07:33, 17 March 2013 editMichig (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators70,062 edits →Retroactive Abortion (album): m← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:29, 17 March 2013 edit undoJax 0677 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers149,133 edits rNext edit → | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| <hr style="width:55%;" /> | <hr style="width:55%;" /> | ||
| *'''Merge''' to ]. A Google search demonstrates that this has been reviewed in several reliable sources. I would go for a merge simply because the total content about the band will fit easily in one article. --] (]) 07:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC) | *'''Merge''' to ]. A Google search demonstrates that this has been reviewed in several reliable sources. I would go for a merge simply because the total content about the band will fit easily in one article. --] (]) 07:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC) | ||
| *''' Reply ''' - Thank you Michig! --] (]) 22:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:29, 17 March 2013
Retroactive Abortion (album)
- Retroactive Abortion (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable album. No evidence that it charted, and it is referenced only to a lone 183-word review which comes nowhere near satisfying WP:GNG.
- Note that the article on the band is also at AFD: see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Venomous Concept. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Merge losslessly to Venomous Concept - Album belongs to a band with at least two notable musicians. IMHO, the following steps need to be taken in order:
- Determine whether Kevin Sharp and Danny Herrera are notable
- Determine whether or not Venomous Concept is notable
- Determine whether or not Retroactive Abortion and Poisoned Apple are notable
- Determine whether or not Template:Venomous Concept is notable
--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Reply A template is a navigational device; it cannot be notable. The fact that you don't understand that suggests that yor general, grasp of the concept of notability is poor. Please read WP:N.
As to the others, WP:NOTINHERITED, so we consider their notability independently.
If there is material in this album article which can be merged to the article on the band without overwhelming that article, then it can of course be merged. How much of it to retain is an editorial decision involving WP:WEIGHT etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Reply A template is a navigational device; it cannot be notable. The fact that you don't understand that suggests that yor general, grasp of the concept of notability is poor. Please read WP:N.
Reply - Sorry, I meant whether or not Template:Venomous Concept SHOULD BE KEPT!!! Again merge it losslessly. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- Merge to Venomous Concept. A Google search demonstrates that this has been reviewed in several reliable sources. I would go for a merge simply because the total content about the band will fit easily in one article. --Michig (talk) 07:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- Reply - Thank you Michig! --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)