Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baby Cham 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. Cbrown1023 21:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Baby Cham discography

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Delete. There is no need for a Baby Cham discography, as he has only produced 2 albums, and both, along with all the relevant information, are listed in the Baby Cham article itself. A discography is simply unnecessary as it is only repeating existing content. NPswimdude500 08:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Article is a fork from the main article and not necessary. --Ouro 13:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:MUSIC if the musician or ensemble that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. The existence of this article doesn't violate any policies.  Whether the material is better presented here or in the main article is a topic for the Talk pages, not for AfD. Lyrl  Talk C 19:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This can be interpreted several ways. The way I interpret it, it says that a significant artist's albums should have their own articles. Baby Cham's two albums, Wow... The Story and Ghetto Story both have their own articles. The portion you quoted as evidence says nothing about discographies.--NPswimdude500 03:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete: the albums have their own pages and there is a category for Baby Cham albums, this page isn't needed and is often out of date with the album information, as it is now. Duplication leads to inconsistencies. Rich257 20:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lyrl Jcuk 01:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete and redirect to Baby Cham. The artist's article is incredibly short. There is zero reason for this to be a separate page rather than a section of that article. GassyGuy 02:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions.   -- SkierRMH 05:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete If there were a plethora of albums to get through, like The Beatles discography, I'd say keep, but this is easily handled on the artist's article with no confusion/inordinate length there.  SkierRMH, 05:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lyrl. Before heading for AfD, learn about things like merge, redirect and article talk pages. --JJay 23:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Surely a redirect or a merge is basically the same as a delete in this case since the information is already on the artist's page? You might say that the content has been merged but the source page has not been redirected.  Seems reasonable to me to use AfD to discuss it, especially as it's already been prodded.Rich257 08:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, in most cases a redirect should be performed to save the edit history. And AfD is not reasonable at all if: (i) you have not previously attempted the redirect; (ii) you have not entered into prior discussion on the article talk page. Either one of those actions could have prevented a sterile AfD discussion that wastes time and bandwidth. --JJay 22:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The Black Wall Street 17:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Lyrl. Ok if you guys feel that way then do what you want to do ok i'm ok with what you guys are saying i don't feel that there is a disagreement here.
 * I recognize that you've done most of the work on the Baby Cham discography article (and the Baby Cham article itself). The real problem with a separate discography article in my opinion is that since Baby Cham has only produced two albums, it does not warrant a separate discography page. And seeing as the information is the same, it would be much easier to have it in one source (it would be much easier to keep it up to date. Currently, the discography in the Baby Cham article has more information than the separate article, which really makes it useless. (Excellent work by the way - chart information is quite conclusive).--NPswimdude500 03:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - selective quote of WP:MUSIC gives the wrong impression. Delete per WP:V and WP:N... Addhoc 17:58, 20 January 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.