Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artension

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 Keep the band article, redirect album articles to it.. No real arguments have been raised that support keeping the individual album articles, though they make fair search terms and will do no harm as redirects. Reasonable editors seem to differ on exactly whether the band itself classes as notable, but because it's made up of more than one independently notable member there isn't an unambiguously correct redirect target, and the article at least serves as a hub connecting the various band members, which will likely aid readers. ~ mazca ^talk 09:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Artension

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

Artension is a non-notable band, and its 7 albums are also non-notable.

All of these 8 pages are unreferenced, and a google search throws up nothing except an entry on AllMusic.com and one on metal-rchives.com. The only review of either band or album is the 78-word note on Allmusic.com, which falls a long way short of the significant coverage required under WP:GNG.

I haven't identified any other criterion of WP:MUSIC which any of these pages meet, other than a possible WP:NBAND#6: "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles". There are articles on the band's 5 current members, but of those only Mike Terrana comes close to having any independent notability. The other 4 are either unreferenced (Staffelbach) or fall short of GNG (Kuprij, DiGiorgio & West). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Keep (or AT A MINIMUM redirect to Mike Terrana)- If there are at least two notable musicians, then the band article should be kept. If not, then the musician articles should be taken to AfD. Do I smell the start of a mass exodus of articles coming on??? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Did you read the nomination? Did you read WP:NBAND#6?
The criterion is independent notability (i.e. per WP:GNG). Mike Terrana appears to meet WP:GNG, but none of the others do. The articles may or may not be AFDed, but the existence of a Wikipedia page is not evidence of the topic's notability.
Also, I note that you didn't comment on the albums. Do you want to offer some defence of those 7 unreferenced and non-notable albums? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I said IF are at least two notable musicians, then the band article should be kept. If there is only one, then the band article can be redirected to that musician, whoever that may be. I neither agree nor disagree with the albums being deleted, so long as all appropriate material is merged losslessly. BTW, when will you merge Hero? --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:NBAND#5 Duncan3dc (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. What exactly is the evidence that any of this meets WP:NBAND#5? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Two of their last three albums (New Discovery & Future World) were released on Frontiers Records — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duncan3dc (talk • contribs) 17:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 14:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly weak keep. Kuprij also appears to be notable enough ([1]), and the band's releases suggest that this is a subject that we should have an article on. The available sources are not ideal though. --Michig (talk) 08:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete album pages. The albums are non-notable according to WP:NALBUMS and should be deleted accordingly. Comment. I still question the notability of the band. The article doesn't match up very well with WP:V or WP:RS either, though I recognize that's not part of the notability argument. Charon123able (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Band does not meet WP:Music notability guidelines. Redirect band page to Vitalij Kuprij who is notable, delete album pages as non-notable. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all pages to Vitalij Kuprij where they are all mentioned and are possible search terms. Agree that stand alone notabilty has not been reached. J04n(talk page) 23:23, 16 April 2013 (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.