Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Blue Man Group CDs


 * 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. John254 00:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Blue Man Group CDs

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This "article" is merely an organized list of albums by the Blue Man Group, along with their track listings. Wikipedia is not a list of such information, and it is therefore encyclopedic. A discography article may be appropriate, however because the group's discography is so small, it may not be necessary either. – Dream out loud (talk) 03:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This just just a discography, the same as given for any other band, I would argue keeping under WP:SIZE. Yngvarr (c) 15:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep and Rename to Blue Man Group discography. It also needs heavy cleanup, but otherwise it's pretty much a misnamed discography. Either that or merge it with Blue Man Group altogether Doc StrangeTelepathic MessagesStrange Frequencies 15:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Discography articles are pretty common. Rename per Doc Strange. Maxamegalon2000 16:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to Blue Man Group discography. This might be a little too long to merge into the main Blue Man Group page, and discography pages are fairly common. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename to Blue Man Group discography Lugnuts (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. But please, no spinoff article called "List of Blue Man Group Blu-Rays" Mandsford (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename per Doc Strange. There are many discography articles for groups where the information is too much to include in the group's main article, why would this one be any different?--Rtphokie (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2008 (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.