Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IV Life...


 * 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. Since an AFD has been opened for the other page, I'll let what happens there happen. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

IV Life...

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable album by non-notable musician. When the only half-reasonable reference I can find is a Huffpo piece, it should probably be deleted as A9, but that's already been contested, hence why we're here. Primefac (talk) 12:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * (Speedy) delete the fact that notable artists appeared on this album doesn't nullify the fact that the artist does not have his own page. If I were the creator I would have started with the artist's page and then moved on his albums. Domdeparis (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * still  Speedy Delete it because the artist does not have their own page and therefore it fits one of the CSDs exactly. I appreciate the note on my talk page about the decline and that Primefac beat me to nominating it here.  Legacypac (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not eligible for speedy deletion. A9 requires that there be no claim of significance, and contributions by multiple notable artists is enough of a claim of significance to survive A9. A9 is a special exception to A7's exclusions; the lack of a claim of significance is the important criterion; the lack of an artist article comes into play only when there is no claim of significance. It's not a balancing matter, any valid claim of significance "outweighs" the absence of an artist article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a mixtape, so none of the other artists did anything to make the tape. Legacypac (talk) 10:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you appear here following my contribs? Winged Blades Godric 11:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Wings tagged it CSD. Wolfowitz removed the tag, then posted here. Legacypac (talk) 11:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * --Prob. you mis-understood my question due to the wrong indentation.This was meant for Hullaballoo.See our recent interactions! Winged Blades Godric 11:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, Godric replaced a speedy after it had been declined already, a generally improper editing practice I've been addressing for years. My comment here is mostly directed to Domdeparis's !vote above, which seriously misconstrues speedy deletion standards. But I don't expect much beyond groundless abuse from an editor who labelled me a "half-literate myopic" on my talk page this morning. As for Legacypac's substantive point, at this point the article claims this is a legitimate album with a number of notable guest performers, and that's the claim speedy proposals are measured against. If the claim isn't transparently false, but requires investigation, it's not speediable. That's why obvious hoaxes can be speedied, but clever ones go to AFD. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Update I've found and added the sister album The Glass Ceiling Project to the nomination as it is the same artist, same issues exactly. Ping previous voters User:Primefac, Guy Macon,talk, and CSD tagger Godric please confirm your vote for the other page. Legacypac (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And I've removed it. I can understand the intention, but it's just procedurally bad timing. It's one thing to add a second page a day or two after the nomination was created, but it's another to add a new page to a week-old discussion and force it to be relisted. Primefac (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Good call. Had not realized we were so close to a week.  I've nom'd the other page here Articles_for_deletion/The_Glass_Ceiling_Project Legacypac (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - both, if enough former !voters come back and endorse the addition by Legacypac. Fails WP:GNG and nowhere near comes close to meeting WP:NALBUM or WP:NMUSIC.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Both for the same reasons posted previously. Should we put an AfD notice pointing here on the new page? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This might be an IAR situation, because we're already at the IAR stage by adding a page a week later. Adding a notice and then deleting the page an hour or two later (which is likely, given that there are only 12 old open AFDs) seems rather pointless. Primefac (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I've nom'd the sister page for deletion at Articles_for_deletion/The_Glass_Ceiling_Project Guy Macon talk talk, and CSD tagger Godric  Legacypac (talk) 15:44, 7 June 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.