Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phish and their music


 * 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   no consensus - default keep. The issue of merging can and should be discussed on the article's talk page among involved editors. However, I'm not ready to declare that the article should be merged based on any consensus formed in this discussion. On a side note, I'm moving the page to "Music of Phish". Okiefromokla questions? 16:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Phish and their music

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

Article is poorly cited and unreliable. Songwriting information should be merged to relevant albums. Roles in songwriting should be merged to relevant artist articles. Phish is a musical group, therefore the music of Phish is discussed on the main article. I don't think a distinct article with vague and unreliable assertions is needed. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete; there is nothing here that can't be within the original Phish article IRK! Leave me a note or two 14:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This article was split from the parent article -- a GA -- to keep the cruft in the parent to a minimum.  As it stands, merging it back would weaken the parent article.  &mdash;  Music  Maker  5376  14:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If this was done to remove "cruft", then this article should be removed as it is "cruft". Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how that would be for the overall benefit of the project. &mdash;  Music  Maker  5376  15:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Phish is a band, right? So surely the article Phish is about Phish, and their music. There is absolutely no reason to have this content fork. The way to keep cruft to a minimum is to delete it, not to create a separate article for it.-- Beloved Freak  15:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should take a look at Phish before you guess its content. &mdash;  Music  Maker  5376  16:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please try and assume good faith here. I did look at both articles, that was the first thing I did. As far as I can tell, having read it, Phish is about Phish, and it's about their music. Just because I disagree with you, please don't take it personally.-- Beloved Freak  02:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Phish is a WP:SUMMARY of this WP:SPINOUT article. That is the reason for the redundancy, which is entirely appropriate.  Naturally, your comment below about the combined article size is a valid counter.  Due to WP:SIZE such a spinout may not be appropriate.  The way to keep OR to a minimum is to remove the offending content and merging the little bit that remains, not to remove the entire article and history. -Verdatum (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   --  Beloved  Freak  15:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Completely appropriate subarticle per WP:SPINOUT, though it should be given a less-informal title (Music of Phish?), and it is in urgent need of sourcing.  The subject, however, is completely legitimate: an article detailing the musical style of Phish, its evolution, and its influences.  Not "cruft" in the least, though at the present time it might have a fair amount of OR.--Father Goose (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Pretty standard practice to break lengthy sections out of articles. There are many articles similar to this one. This one just needs better TLC. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 22:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I understand spinout articles, but the two articles put together are only about 45K. -- Beloved Freak  02:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: This article has been in one of my sandboxes for about a year, waiting to be improved to be merged back into the main article.  Keep the article if only to keep the attribution for what eventually goes back into the main article.  &mdash;  Music  Maker  5376  03:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't the references be kept in your sandbox too?-- Beloved Freak  19:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe in this context, attribution refers to "who edited what". That information is not carried over when manually copied to/from the user-space.  However, merging leaves the edit history in tact, as required by the GFDL. -Verdatum (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and let the Phish editors decide whether to merge back in. The subject material is definitely notable and important.  Whether per WP:Summary style it's best dealt with as a subarticle, or completely incorporated in the main article, is an editorial decision that those who write and edit the Phish articles should make, not drive-by commenters at AfD who don't have as much expertise in the subject matter.  Wasted Time R (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This stuff should be covered on the Phish article or on the members' respective pages. The title is also arby. Why Phish and their music? Does that not imply this is an article on Phish (the band) and the band's music. There is no requirement for this extra page, and it strikes me as fan indulgence. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 09:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete - So, some editors are creating a GA (which is good) and rather than delete the stuff that doesn't belong, they create an article to contain this. This smells like a fork. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge - Spinoff or not, it doesn't work as a stand-alone article. Fits the bill for Original Content and Indiscriminate information, due to lack of citation. Wikipedia is not for a subjective analysis of a band's "style", at least not outside of the band's article. Can you say, with good conscious, that this article exists solely to keep the main page from filling up, or simply because it is just too much content on too specific of a topic. Condense this down into the main ideas, find some citations, and merge back into the main Phish article under a new section. Carson (talk) 08:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge following cleanup. If it was just an issue of notability, the article should be kept per WP:NNC.  But as Carson points out, it's largely original research that could and should be trimmed.  It appears the result would be only few sentences appropriate for WP, making a merge of this WP:SPINOUT article prudent. -Verdatum (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep due to the single good reference. Trim to what is supported by the reference, or add more sources.  Is not a fork, but a spinout.  At worst, redirect back to Phish.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:48, 31 July 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.