Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tribe of Force


 * 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   merge to Van Canto. J04n(talk page) 10:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Tribe of Force

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable album, fails WP:NALBUM. It has 3 refs:
 * a paragraph on a reviews site
 * a broken link to a record label website
 * a paragraph on Allmusic.com
 * This falls a long way short of the notability test of substantial coverage in reliable sources.  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

In any case, I note that Jax0677 does not make any claim that the topic is notable, let alone evidence that it is notable. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Whichever it it was, Jax has quoted from the closing admin's summary of the discussion rather than from the conclusion, which rejected any blanket approval of that point: "that consensus is to Keep current wording and merge or redirect album articles that only contain an infobox and a tracklist. Given the comments above, such merges should be done in compliance with current policies and guidelines, and when such information is considered notable (or encyclopedic) enough to be included". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 *  Keep (or redirect to van Canto at a minimum)  - Merging too many album articles losslessly (track listings and personnel included) into the ensemble article would be messy. The number of albums with full track listings and album info to be merged into a musical ensemble or artist page was discussed here.  Are we going to now start a mass deletion campaign of all non-notable albums? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * When a topic is not notable, we don't need to aim for a lossless merge; we can summarise. If the topic is not notable, it does not require that much detail, and should not be covered in that much detail.
 *  Reply  - Here it says "Users have expressed interest in keeping the tracklists somewhere in Wikipedia". Implied in this is keeping the information about the album, which is what an encyclopedia should do. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply. Jax, was that a sneaky attempt at misrepresenting the result of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music), or did you just not bother to read the closing statement?


 *  Reply  - Do I recall you saying "If an article would be overwhelmed by listing all the tracks on non-notable albums, the solution is simple: don't list all the tracks"? My point is that neither the track listings nor the pertinent details should not go away, even if the album articles do get merged into the ensemble article.  IMHO, if the artist is notable, the song names, times and participants in their albums can be listed somewhere on Wikipedia. WP is WP:NOTCENSORED, therefore the track listings should not be excluded from an artist or ensemble page so long as the artist is considered notable.  The track listings and the album titles are information about the artist.  Perhaps an AfD should be filed against van Canto? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Stop being silly. There is no question of censorship, just of editorial commonsense. If the material overwhelms an article, some of it may be omitted; but the fact that some editors want to include material which overloads an article is no grounds for creating another article on a non-notable topic. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

 Reply  - If the article has room, include the track listing in the article. If not, do a size split. The reason that Central Station (Phoenix) has its own article is because the Metro Light Rail (Phoenix)  article would otherwise be too large. This is why WP:NALBUMS says "space permitting". --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply. Splitting specifically says that notability needs to be considered when splitting a topic. An album does not become notable just because some editors ignore WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, and are determined to include a full track listing of every album. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 00:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge to Van Canto. None of the band's album articles seem to have enough content to make separate articles necessary, and merging them all to the band article would make sense. The personnel is basically the same across the albums - any members coming or going could be mentioned in the prose, and I wouldn't see the track lengths as essential information to merge.--Michig (talk) 07:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 *  Reply  - Like No Justice, the albums absolutely should be merged losslessly, track lengths included. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * merge with Van Canto. Frietjes (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge per Jax. – SJ  +  21:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge with van Canto, as with Hero (van Canto album). Victão Lopes  I hear you... 03:29, 25 March 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.