Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Luchagors (album) (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Amy Dumas. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Luchagors (album)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
The Luchagors (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This album does not meet WP:NALBUM. The claim is that the band is notable, but the band is only "notable" because their lead singer is famous as a former WWE wrestler, not because there are notable solo musicians in the band. Notability is not inherited. Furthermore, the album appears to be a digital self-release; there is no label information, so it doesn't meet that criterion either. There were no singles, nothing comes up for charts, and no airplay notes are available either, so it fails that criterion. Over half the information is sourced from the band's MySpace (and is not noted as such), and the one Google News hit I got was from a blog local to the band's homebase and had nothing to do with the album. Therefore, the album fails to meet guidelines. An AllMusic review alone isn't enough to meet N when it's the only review. Most other albums have multiple reviews available. MSJapan (talk) 02:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Except that she is not notable as a musician, and she is not solely responsible for the album - this is why there is a problem with inherited notability, which is in essence what you say applies and is valid. Policy says otherwise. MSJapan (talk) 02:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm supporting a merge (and then a redirect), not a keep. The notability guideline only applies to separate articles, not to merges or redirects. And the guideline states that as long as a redirect is useful, it should exist, as per WP:R#KEEP Criteria 5, a redirect should be created if "someone finds them useful... If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do."--hkr Laozi speak 14:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No, I saw what you were getting at, but my point was that I'm not even sure it's notable enough for a merge. Seems borderline to me. MSJapan (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects and merges don't need to be notable in the WP:N sense. Usually, it's just a guidance tool for readers, and the only requirement is relevance.--hkr (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - yeah, its the equivalent of a movie star starting a band and putting out an album in my mind. Although not inherited, coverage of the act due to the fact that she is famous allows the band to be notable, and thusly, the album as well. A quick search leads me to believe it meets criteria; I don't know when I can work on this, but I think it should be kept. - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I hate to sound snippy, but there's no way around it. "Although not inherited, coverage of the act due to the fact that she is famous allows the band to be notable, and thusly, the album as well" - that's exactly the definition of inherited notability, and you're extending it to multiple levels (which is precisely what the inheritance policy prohibits). The album doesn't meet the album criteria by itself, the band doesn't meet BAND by itself, and you're saying flat out that the act is covered not because it is a band, but because Amy Dumas is in it. So therefore, the coverage isn't really on the band, or the album, but because of and on Amy Dumas as a ex-pro wrestler (not a musician). So where's the basis for a keep rationale as it pertains to actual policy? MSJapan (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found enough sources for the band for it to meet notability, I found enough sources for the album to meet notability. What I meant was that because she is a notable person, her band was talked about in enough venues to meet notability. I haven't had a chance to work on it. - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - links perused and vetted, results posted on this AFD's discussion page. MSJapan (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Luchagors_(album)_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1141942530"