Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Echosmith 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 merge to Echosmith. It appears this is what the nomination was after in the first place, and there is consensus that this is the correct course of action notwithstanding that some of the comments supporting this have bolded the word "delete". Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Echosmith discography

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The discography page is just over 10 kB, and the article is just under 20 kB, which are not prohibitive lengths per WP:SIZE nor MOS:DISCOGRAPHY. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I do not feel that this is a valid reason for deletion. The article in question is definitely not too long, and anyway, we do not delete an article based on size. In that circumstance, the article can be forked, or the non-appropriate content removed. With this in mind, would consider withdrawal or changing the rationale? TheMagikCow (T) (C) 17:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   17:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   17:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 *  Reply - My point is, that the discography should not have been split from the Echosmith article in the first place. I tried to PROD the page, but the tag was removed, so I am taking the discussion here, and am open to suggestions. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: The reason why I created this page is because the disography section on the band's article is for studio albums only. This article is for their entire disography and for that reason it should not be deleted. --Bowling is life (talk) 3:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, per MOS:DISCOGRAPHY, "If an article already exists on an author or artist, then a separate article for a list of that person's works (such as Bibliography of Jorge Luis Borges or Robert A. Heinlein bibliography) is warranted if the list becomes so long that its inclusion in the main article would be unsuitable" and "Musicians that have released a significant amount of work should be given their own discography articles". IMHO, both the artist and the discography can be merged into a single article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want the discography merged back in and the separate page redirected, you should have just done it. And merging/redirecting is definitely not deletion, so AFD is not the place for that. postdlf (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, I tried to PROD the article, but that got reverted, so I sent the issue to a "forum that has teeth". When I attempt to split a discography, I place a split-section tag on the discography section and wait at least one month before creating such a page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * PROD is also for outright deletion, not for merging/redirecting. My suggestion is next time merge back the content yourself and redirect the separate page, and then if that is reverted discuss why with the other editor. postdlf (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, I do appreciate your suggestion, and will take that under consideration in the future. However, if my PROD was reverted, I have a feeling that my merge would have been as well.  I took the article to AFD, as there is no "Articles for discussion" forum.  One of the potential verdicts of AFD is merging.  I also cannot merge the article until this AFD is closed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think one thing I'm trying to push back against is the idea that everything has to be resolved through "forums" or compulsory, quasi-legal processes. I've discovered in many instances that simply talking with another editor one-on-one, whether on their talk page or on an article's talk page, resolves a disagreement far more easily than initiating some kind of deletion process, which can just polarize, and requires more editor time to process. postdlf (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, I am not disagreeing. However, now that this AFD has been started, I would like to see verdicts of "Merge" written down. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Had this started as a separate article then a merge would be obvious, but as this has unnecessarily been split out from the band article, delete this and revert the band article back to the revision that includes the full discography. --Michig (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 *  Comment -, , would any of you please be so kind and comment on Articles for deletion/Beware of Darkness discography? Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 05:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge/Delete After understanding the unusual rationale, I agree that this should not have been split off from Echosmith.  d.g. L3X1  (distant write)  12:50, 7 May 2017 (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.