Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donda stem player


 * 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 merge to Donda (album). – bradv 🍁  23:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Donda stem player

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Subordinate to the Donda (album) article, where it can be covered under the "Release" section. Possibly also a case of WP:TOOSOON and WP:SUSTAINED/WP:SBST (the event being the announcement of the stem player). Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 11:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 11:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 11:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment by creator: While I assumed absolute good faith while writing this article and considered to have even named it Stem player because it integrates Stem (audio), I would take an indifferent/neutral stance on if the article should be deleted or not. One thing I may ask, if the article is deemed not to standalone, rather than delete, kindly make a redirect of the article to where you deem best. Respect. Danidamiobi (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: belongs in a subsection of Donda's article when it releases. Kettleonwater (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge the content into Donda (album) and then redirect the page. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 12:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete All the necessary information regarding the player is already in the main Donda (album) page. ‒ overthrows 19:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge i say merge to main donda page -pyraminxsolver Pyraminxsolver (talk) 23:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:RAPID; I'm seeing no good reasons for deletion, article is a well-sourced stub. An alternative could be to draftify, or to move the page to Stem player, move all Donda-related content to the album article, and retarget the resulting redirect "Donda stem player" to the relevant subsection. The music player is notable enough on its own for it to exist outside of the album article (as proposed by others above). Sean Stephens (talk) 05:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You did not address WP:SUSTAINED. In order for a subject to be notable, coverage needs to be sustained. Per WP:SUSTAINED, brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. News coverage so far has not extended beyond the mere announcement of the stem player, coverage thereby is not (yet) sustained. This is a fairly obvious case of WP:TOOSOON. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 08:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right, it's too soon—too soon to nominate this article for deletion. Articles shouldn't be created and then immediately be nominated for deletion; see WP:RAPID, as linked above. WP:SUSTAINED may not be able to be addressed at this stage, as something that's only existed for a minimal period of time can't be expected to have a large variety of sources available for use, hence why this AFD was created too soon. It's absolutely ludicrous. Would it hurt to act in good faith? I suggest draftification as the best outcome here. Sean Stephens (talk) 07:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * A deletion discussion does not need to result in deletion. Merging and redirecting is a perfectly acceptable outcome, which editors are proposing. The article could then be turned back into a standalone article at a later point, when coverage of the subject proves to be sustained. Per WP:RAPID, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days. It's been five days since the burst of coverage regarding the announcement of the player and no significant coverage has occurred since. There is no argument for "Keep" at this stage. Side note, please don't assume bad faith. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 09:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I am aware that there are multiple outcomes of these discussions. Hopefully whichever one occurs is satisfactory for the majority. I do understand your point, but I don't necessarily agree with it. I might have a go at expanding it if I get the time. I want to apologise for assuming bad faith; I was having a bad day and wrote it in the heat of the moment. I'm sorry for having said it, and I've struck that comment above. Sean Stephens (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2021 (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.