Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The White Ox

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 not delete. Whether this article should be merged with another is a discussion that can occur on the relevant talk pages. Kurykh (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The White Ox

The White Ox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested redirect and PROD. Fails notability, either

• Author Keep/Merge/Procedural Close. This is the wrong venue for the action the nominator is attempting to accomplish. He first redirected the article to the artist page; I reverted and suggested a merge to the artist article or to a unified discography article, since the current article is composed of encyclopedic discographical information, even if it's probably not enough to merit a stand-alone article (under current consensus rules). Rather than support a merge, the nominator moved on to PROD and now AfD the article. But deletion isn't a sensible action to take; even if the content is merged, it would still be desirable to leave a redirect to the artist discography. Chubbles (talk) 07:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I wrote on my talk page, when you moved the discussion from your talk page to mine against the edit notice on my page, you're welcome to move the unsourced content to wherever you want. The deletion discussions don't preclude that. What's not sensible is keeping an article that fails notability guidelines around just so someone can some day merge the content somewhere. And to clarify the order was redirect, revert, PROD, contested prod and merge proposal. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • From whence this "move it or lose it" demand? I fail to see why the nominator feels justified in making demands of me as a volunteer under threat of deletion. I don't feel compelled to execute the merge myself, though he is welcome to do it. In any case, deletion is not a legitimate course of action to take here even if the article is judged non-notable; merging is, in that case. Chubbles (talk) 07:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • When it was a redirect, the history was there, yet you decided to restore a non-notable recording despite a complete lack of sourced because the information should be saved. That's just not done. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • The information to be saved is basic discographical information - year, label, track list. All of this comes from the published work itself; do you want a footnote from the liner notes? Chubbles (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets the
  WP:GNG per coverage from from AllMusic, Exclaim, and Billboard. Not a lot, but enough to write up a decent stub for an EP. Sergecross73 msg me 19:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 04:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep/Merge to Unwed Sailor. Has received reasonable coverage, but there may not be enough to write about it to justify a separate article. --Michig (talk) 09:53, 4 March 2017 (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.