Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spinal Tap 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.  

The result was keep. John254 01:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Spinal Tap discography

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

DeleteThis article is a perfect example of WP:NOT, no reference to out of universe relevance either Daniel J. Leivick 00:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Close & Keep - Spinal Tap is obviously notable, as is thier discography. The content of the discography should be discussed on the Talk page. Obviously there are some issues with this article, if you feel that something should be changed to only reflect thier "real" albums then by all means feel free to change the article. Deletion is NOT the correct course of action in this case. -- wtfunkymonkey 01:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Incredibly Weak Merge and Redirect. If the Spinal Tap article is large enough, keep it.  --Dennisthe2 01:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I would say merge, but it's too long for a merge, but notable enough to be kept. --Strothra 07:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vaguely WP:OR and speculation that does not seem to be based on reliable sources, other than fansites. What's on the main article is sufficient. Agent 86 07:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Article includes records that were released in "our world". Catchpole 12:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but tidy up somehow. Possibly rename to List of... ? I've seen similar information about other bands. The JPS talk to me  14:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep & Clean-up; it is definitely too long to merge with the Spinal Tap article, but definitely deserves to be kept. In similar cases, it should/would need to be placed within the parent article. --Mhking 15:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable topic, length merits a seperate page from the main Spinal Tap article. Actually, I wish more band pages would follow this format, rather than having seperate stub articles for each and every album. Lyrl  Talk C 18:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep article needs a good bit of work, especially in the intro (and eliminating the self reference), but ultimately this is useful and too long to merge.-- danntm T C 18:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep notable. --Davidbober 20:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean-up per above. ← A NAS  Talk? 20:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable topic. Sourcing, length, andclean-up difficulties can potentially be solved. Question of whether content should be merged (e.g. with Spinal Tap) can be handled in a separate RfM. --Shirahadasha 20:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable but could do with a clean-up tag. -- Squeezeweasel talk  21:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep-notable but needing cleanup — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeckWiz (talk • contribs)
 * Clear keep - definitely notable, but as noted above, requires some cleanup.  Insane  phantom   (my Editor Review)  09:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I think it is clear I was hasty nominating this page for deletion but I think I should make my issues with this page clear. In my mind there is a huge distinction between fictional discography and real discography.  Spinal Taps real world discography has a place on Wikipedia, there fictional discography (In this level of detail) is pure cruft and does not.  The problem is the article's title is not all that clear, since Tap has both fictional and real discographies it might be best to have a renamed article along the lines of "Real world Spinal Tap discography" or some such.  The fist line is all that really prompted me to nominate, I read it and thought, "Wow this is really not what Wikipedia is." I apologize for not thinking it all the way through. --Daniel J. Leivick 01:00, 16 January 2007 (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.