Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Every King a Bastard Son


 * 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.  Spinning Spark  14:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Every King a Bastard Son

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable album, which fails WP:NALBUMS. No sign of any substantial coverage, or of evidence that it charted. The only ref is a link to allmusic.com, which is just a track listing, without a review.

Note that this is part of a long series of permastub articles on non-notable albums created by User:Jax 0677 to increase the link count on superfluous navboxes created bim, after they have been nominated for deletion. In this case, see the TFD for Rozz Williams. When !vote-count was running 5-2 in favour of deletion, Jax wrote ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_16&diff=547164320&oldid=546684945 Navbox now has 5 albums. Happy?]''. That was minutes after he had created stubs 3 non-noatble albums: Every King a Bastard Son, Live in Berlin (Rozz Williams album) and Accept The Gift of Sin. All 3 are now at AFD: see AFD:Every King a Bastard Son, AFD:Live in Berlin (Rozz Williams album) and AFD:Accept The Gift of Sin. (I would have PRODded these, but Jax contests every such provide without providing evidence of notability). Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC) It's also a pity that Jax yet again misrepresents Wikipedia talk:Notability (music). There is no requirement to merge, let alone to merge losslessly. The guidance at Notability (music) remains that info on non-notable topics "may be included in other ways in Wikipedia, provided that certain conditions are met". There is definitely no requirements to splat a tracklist ointo an article on a band. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:NALBUMS.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   14:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Because of article development, I feel that this now meets WP:NALBUMS.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   00:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've expanded this somewhat. This is the debut solo album by a highly notable artist. It's not surprising that Googling isn't revealing much by way of reviews; this is over 20 years old. Goth culture, rock music and alternative music magazines in the 1990s will have covered this, but I do not have access to any of them. J Milburn (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've found an article that was in Trouser Press; probably a great number of magazines like this will have covered the album. The majority of them, though, are not going to be accessible online, or within easy reach of me personally. I'm not sure quite how much you want... J Milburn (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've found some obituaries of Williams which list the album as a significant example of his work- how are they? One was apparently in NME (scroll to the bottom), though I don't have a full citation. This is another magazine which may well have reviewed the album, but I do not have access to an archive to check. Again, how much are you wanting? Sure, I've not expanded the article to featured status, but I'm confident I've demonstrated that the subject is notable... J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 *  Keep (or merge LOSSLESSLY)  - Per this discussion, the album and its details should (at a minimum) be merged LOSSLESSLY into Rozz Williams. That being said, I concur with Milburn on keeping the article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply. I have lost count of the number of recent AFDs in which I have seen Jax commenting. In none of them have I seen him pay any attention to the basic notability criteria at WP:GNG, and he remains true to form here.
 *  Reply  - There is plenty of space in the article for track listings and album details. Therefore, now that it is on Wikipedia and properly sourced, it should not be removed so long as the artist or ensemble is notable.   If the article becomes too large, then this falls under a size split. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Jax, there is no policy or guideline requiring that a merge be lossless. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Missing word "no" added. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I meant that there is "no policy or guideline requiring that a merge be lossless". Per WP:MERGE, Merging should be avoided if: 1) The resulting article is too long or "clunky". Splatting an set of track listings of non-notable albums into another article serves no encyclopedic purpose if there is nothing to say about the significance of the albums other than that they existed. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 *  Reply  - Where is this "policy or guideline requiring that a merge be lossless"? To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing saying that the merge can not be lossless, which this type of merge should be. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Missing word "no" now added


 * Keep per the sourcing by J Milburn. J04n(talk page) 01:50, 5 April 2013 (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.