Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Gillan 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.

Ian Gillan discography
The result was Keep. There is clear consensus to keep something in the article, so I am withdrawing this. I would comment I am disappointed that none of the keep !voters commented on this for the five months that Ian Gillan was sat unreviewed at WP:GAN. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   08:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unreferenced and orphaned fork of a parent article. When asked for a reason for forking, the page creator simply said "Read MoS" with no further explanation. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   19:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Here's the MoS section about discographies: Manual of Style/Lists of works. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Most established musicians have their own discography page. This one may need some maintenance and its creation may have been arbitrary, but I think that it's worth keeping. Plus, the article was very long and cutting it shorter might have some benefit. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. It seems perfectly reasonable to split this from the Ian Gillan article. Some of the sections could be summarized with links to full discographies in the articles for Gillan (band) etc., but it would still be large enough to split off. The vast majority is easily verified. --Michig (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 17:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 17:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Even setting aside the point that "unreferenced" ≠ "unverifiable" and thus that is not a valid deletion argument, I don't even understand the claim that this is unreferenced. A list of published works, regardless of the medium, is a list of references. It seems that there are nevertheless people who get confused by the simple fact that we are listing published works for their own sake rather than using them to provide citations for another article topic (and yes, we do cite to albums themselves as reliable sources). When you are given sufficient information to identify the published work (title, author, and date are often enough, though more is helpful) there is no need to add a reference from yet another published work to prove the first published work exists. We'd otherwise have an infinite regression of sourcing. If the complaint is instead simply that there is no reference to verify that the discography is complete, that's not only irrelevant to deletion, but it's also easily fixable by linking to the musician's entry on Allmusic, for example. As for the "forking" complaint, at best this would be merged back to the parent article and so should not have been brought to AFD at all per WP:ATD, because the Ian Gillan biography does not contain this discography but instead only links to it. WP:SIZE alone would seem to indicate that WP:SPLITting this off was a wise decision, however. postdlf (talk) 18:25, 4 January 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.