Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Through the Madness, Vol. 1

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.

Through the Madness, Vol. 1

Through the Madness, Vol. 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

EP release. No chart position, no significant coverage, fails WP:GNG; WP:NMUSIC. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The sources already listed demonstrate baseline notability (several magazine articles and CMT). Why? I Ask (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it's unclear to me why the sourcing already present isn't enough to meet the GNG. CMT is pretty high level, mainstream coverage too. Sergecross73 msg me 14:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, coverage from CMT alone is significant coverage.
  Taste of Country is also considered an RS for country music material, and it's cited twice here with articles primarily focused on the EP. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, Significant media coverage by high ranking country music sites gives notability to the article. Urbanracer34 (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there's even more coverage than what I added to the article, clears notability no problem. QuietHere (talk) 00:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge - Keep or merge, but do not delete history. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jax 0677 What would we be merging it with? The artist article? And for what it's worth, I'm opposed to merging and my keep vote stands, just figured I should ask. QuietHere (talk) 08:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - Yes, merge to Maddie & Tae. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: It could possibly be merged when the full album comes out (as this seems to be just part one), but the information on this page (such as the tracklist) can not really fit on the parent page. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion has been proposed for merger to Maddie & Tae, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 22, 2022. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page.

• Keep - The suggestion to merge seems to be a bit of a throwaway in a vote that also suggested keeping. Merging to the band's article is nonsensical because this album's existence is already mentioned there, and nowhere else in Wikipedia (I hope) will you find a lopsided musician's article in which the history and details of one album are crammed in awkwardly while all their other albums have separate articles. Meanwhile, I am convinced by the "keep" voters above, who have cited the necessary sources and WP policies. Expanding this into a merge discussion is both awkward and
  bureaucratic. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Notable EP with enough coverage. Misceditor1000 (talk) 05:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets
  WP:NALBUM per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 09:03, 25 June 2022 (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.