Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wind-Up Canary


 * 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 Casey Dienel. There's not strictly a consensus to merge, but I'm going with that partly because it seems like a reasonable middle ground, partly because of WP:ATD, and partly because the sole person arguing to keep has stated they are OK with the merge. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Wind-Up Canary

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * Fails NALBUMS across the board. Not a notable album. Also, reviews linked in the infobox are unavailable and/or linked to self-published websites (but not by the artist herself).
 * These do not meet the criteria for reliable sources and independent coverage. Also this was an article changed to a redirect in 2014 . It was then changed back to an article in July 2016 .Steve Quinn (talk) 05:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Reviews linked in the infobox are not unavailable, as a cursory Google search indicates; the Popmatters article was moved to, and the Pitchfork article to . Neither of these is selfpublished, nor is AMG. There is thus significant coverage of the album, and even if there weren't, this would be the wrong venue for dealing with the problem, as a better solution would be merging content with a discography page. Chubbles (talk) 09:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence of notability and no reliable sources. Deb (talk) 12:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The three sources already identified, plus e.g. NPR covering the album, constitute multiple third-party coverage of the sort that would ordinarily hurdle WP:NALBUMS. Pitchfork, PopMatters, Allmusic, and NPR...that's a fairly solid roster of media attention. Chubbles (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There is only one source named in the article. If you think it can be fixed, please go ahead and fix it. Deb (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe, very strongly, that WP:NOTCLEANUP is a good guideline, and I welcome editors who think exhaustive sourcing of articles is a valuable use of their time to go ahead and fix it. The current state of the article is not a rationale for deletion. Chubbles (talk) 07:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine - I'll just redirect it until someone is prepared to spend time creating a referenced article. Deb (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is not unreferenced - it has four references already, with a couple of broken links; these are easy to fix. Unilateral redirection, which is like a "pocket deletion", is not justified, especially not when AfD is ongoing. Chubbles (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Reviews in themselves are not evidence of notability. Deb (talk) 10:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor Talk! 10:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Independent reviews are exactly what WP:NALBUMS has in mind in its first bullet point. Chubbles (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  18:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Casey Dienel. Honestly people, if your favourite not-very famous singer with 7 whole paragraphs of bio puts out an album, just put all the info there.  And all you procedure-mad wikipedians who love sending things to AFD - redirects are so easy, everyone can do them. Song -> Album -> Singer.  No stupid template, no two weeks of trolling for comments, just redirect.   Th e S te ve   07:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * While I maintain that the album is itself independently notable, I am not, in principle, opposed, here or in general, to seeing albums merged into discography pages. But this too often ends up as just lazily redirecting the article without moving any content. If the article is merged, not merely redirected, this is reasonable. Nevertheless, AfD is not and was never the proper venue for deciding that. Chubbles (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am still chuckling thanks to your comment. I agree with your take - a merge or redirect and merge would have saved time and would be one less AfD. Thanks. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that you said merging to a discography (article) would have worked best, yet it was you who resurrected this article from a redirect. Wasn't it possible for you to merge this into a discography or the artist's biography article in the first place? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, before I AfD any article I always do due diligence and do google searches, news searches, and newspaper searches. I really was not satisfied with the coverage I discovered - but a merge would be acceptable to me. Also, it is not necessary to make discovered sources more significant than they really are. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether things have separate articles or not is very, very, very important to some Wikipedians, and seems to dominate a lot of decision-making on the site, to the exclusion of other alternatives at times. In this case, I was concerned primarily about the removal of encyclopedic content. If it is deleted, or redirected (and thus hidden from view) without merge, valuable and worthwhile content is then hidden from users. I don't care if the content is on the White Hinterland page or in a stand-alone article...but ultimately, I'm not trying to convince you that what matters is placating me in some compromise; I'm trying to convince you that the removal of content is not in the best interest of the users, because the information about the album is encyclopedic. I'm happy for the article to stand alone, and I don't think there is sufficient reason that it shouldn't...but if it were presented as part of a larger discography page instead, that's six of one, half-a-dozen of the other. I just wish everyone else saw it that way. Chubbles (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2016 (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.