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. As far as I can tell, preserving the edit history will be needed to do a merge here. W.marsh 14:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mims discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article should e deleted and it's content moved to MIMS Ridernyc 06:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you mean merge and redirect, which doesn't require an AfD consensus. Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. What's the rationale for deleting or redirecting this? I don't see one. We have tons of "Artist X Discography" articles. MIMS is hardly obscure, This Is Why I'm Hot was a number one record. Discography articles seem to be standard practice and I don't see what's different about this one, other than MIMS is a relatively new artist who has only released one album (though supposedly another one is coming out in the next few months). Nom needs to provide a rationale for deletion or redirect. It's small now, but will obviously grow and does not currently include things like guest appearances which I'm sure he has made.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, no deletion rationale given. 96T 18:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete discography pages are for decade-old bands with several albums (e.g. The Goo Goo Dolls), not for an artist with one single and one album. Will ^(talk) 21:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy or guideline upon which you are drawing here? Because we don't seem to be following the practice of only creating discography pages for "decade-old bands" and I don't see why the length of time someone has been around would have any bearing on anything. Under Category:Discographies I see 196 entries including Avril Lavigne discography (3 albums), Bun B discography (2 albums), and Clipse discography (2 albums officially released). Their albums were released since 2000, and these are just three entries I found from names I quickly recognized in the A-C sections. How exactly is MIMS different with his one album with a huge hit single and another album to be released in the near future? (This is a case where "otherstuffexists" is clearly relevant, as it actually often is in deletion debates, despite the argument here in this essay). We could delete this discography now, but it will just get recreated when his second album comes out as it almost certainly will (barring some major unforeseen circumstance--MIMS is often considered the most promising NYC MC--at least in terms of sales possibilities--and there's no sign of him going away any time soon). If guidelines say discographies should be listed in the artist article as Ridernyc suggests below then we have some serious cleanup to do, but I have not heard of that guideline, and I still don't see a policy-based rationale for deletion. I think it makes a lot of sense to have discography articles for significant artists. They are very useful and save a lot of space in the main article, from which we can (and often do) easily link to the discography.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly. Two singles, one album. That's three in total. Avril has 14 singles and three albums. That's six times the total of releases. Otherwise, it's too short to stand on its own and should be part of the artist's page. If you think a certain discography article is too short, propose deletion or a merge. (And by the way, to strengthen my point, the Goo Goo Dolls don't have a discography page, and they're more successful than MIMS is.) Will ^(talk) 19:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about 2 albums and 5 singles, none of which were a hit? Do you see my point? What's the standard for when an artist can have a discography page? We don't seem to have one, so saying three albums is enough and one is not seems rather arbitrary. You're quite convinced in your view, I disagree, and neither of us are using guidelines for our arguments, but it's more of a problem for the delete camp because you need to provide a valid rationale or we default to keep. Incidentally, I don't think "success" has a particular bearing on whether an artist gets a discography page or not. Some prolific and quite notable musicians never achieve anything approaching the success of pop acts like the Goo Goo Dolls or Avril Lavigne, but I don't think this should have any bearing on whether they get a discography page. Ridernyc has helpfully started a thread on the WP:MUSIC page, so hopefully this can be discussed further there.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm pretty sure in guide lines somewhere it explains that discography's should be listed in the artists article. Also the entry on WP:MUSIC for albums states that NN albums should should be part of the artists article, if albums should be part of the article then a fair conclusion is that a NN discography containing 3 entries should also be part of the artists article. If I can fit the entire discography of The Residents in the article and see no reason to split it off I fail to see a reason for a 3 song discography of NN releases to have it own page.Ridernyc 22:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC actually says "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article, space permitting [emphasis added]. I don't think it's a problem that The Residents discography is in the article, but I don't see a guideline which says splitting off discographies is a problem either (at times as in the case of The Beatles bootlegs and The Beatles discography and I'm sure many others it's downright necessary). Wikipedia has a lot of lists of things, many of which are fairly worthless. Discography articles for significant artists are quite useful and we seem to have embraced them. It thus seems fairly arbitrary to AfD this one article rather than having a larger conversation if discog articles about newer groups/artists are really such a problem.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt anyone is ever going to make a discography with out following it by making pages for each album. The edior working on the MIMS article is making articles for everything, artist, albums, and songs. And I do agree it needs to be a larger discussion. Ridernyc 07:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, well we have pretty clear guidelines on what to do with albums and songs and non-notable artists and it seems like those articles which this new user created and which do not meet our guidelines have been/will be deleted (as a new contributor it's not surprising they are not aware of our notability guidelines). It seems to be okay to have album pages (from significant artists) so long as the content is more than a track listing (though often that's what it is). With discographies I really just do not see the harm (we do content forks all the time) while there are clear advantages in terms of readability of articles. Anyhow in the absence of a definite guideline on what to do with discographies (perhaps that can be worked on, or maybe we're just missing an existing guideline) I think we should err on the side of keep on this one.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion on the WP:MUSIC talk page about this issue. Ridernyc 08:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is no encyclopedia article here, might as well delete it. Burntsauce 17:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.