Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Know Our B-Sides (2nd nomination)

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 redirect‎ to Manic Street Preachers discography#Extended plays. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Know Our B-Sides[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:NALBUM, just as it didn't satisfy it in 2012~~, when all relevant material was merged into Manic Street Preachers discography~~. Restore Redirect to Manic Street Preachers discography#Extended plays. Muhandes (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - this single stands out as one of only 2 ever released exclusively in Japan. The discography is also incomplete without it. Also, there is an article and a discog template entry for Further Away as well as Life Becoming a Landslide and this has never been nominated for deletion. So, by the same logic - both Nobody Loved You and the Know Our B-Sides EP should both be kept. This track isn't some unofficial, non-authorized 12" whitelabel, it's an officially released single - but according to some Wikipedians, it doesn't count because it was only released in Japan. Should we remove the tracklistings of the Japanese album versions because they don't count too? Wikipedia specifically aims to not solely focus on the English speaking world as reiterated in . Finally, as per Wikipedia:Notability (music), "Specific to recordings, a recording may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria: The recording has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it.". This has been satisfied because it appears on reputable Japanese sites. Furthermore, "the recording has appeared on any country's music chart". This single has, so it has satisfied two conditions where only one is required for notability.

Finally, @Muhandes: stated above "...just as it didn't satisfy it in 2012, when all relevant material was merged into Manic Street Preachers discography.". Why are you making statements that aren't true? None of this article was merged into the above, other than the title of the EP and the year. Your point is null and void because it's just not true Apeholder (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Apeholder (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

@Apeholder: The title of the EP and the year are all the relevant material. If you find that offending, I will strike it out as it is immaterial. The material part is WP:NALBUM which is not satisfied. Muhandes (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Muhandes: the title and year is clearly not enough to satisfy your "it's contained elsewhere" assertion. Where does it say that those two pieces of info are enough? This EP has satisfied various conditions of the criteria you specified Apeholder (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Apeholder: I'm not sure what you are repeating this, I stroked out that "assertion" because it is an immaterial part of the nomination. The nomination is due to WP:NALBUM not being satisfied. Show that it is satisfied by editing the article, and I will be very happy to withdraw this nomination. Muhandes (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Muhandes: I have read WP:NALBUM that you keep referring to: "That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article." By this logic, none of their singles should be included on Wikipedia. Also, I have read the First deletion discussion you referenced, but again nobody was able to describe why this article should be deleted but that the rest are notable enough to keep. One person even says "I Googled it and couldn't find much". It's a Japanese only release and Google shows you English articles! Of COURSE they wouldn't find much! There are also far more references to notability for this release than most other Manics articles. The release is notable enough to be included on WP as any others are, and it does not make sense having an incomplete discography on here because someone is being over-zealous when it comes to interpreting WP guidelines. I would love to hear an explanation. If this can be satisfied, then yes the article should be deleted.Apeholder (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Apeholder: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Muhandes (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Muhandes: It's also nothing to do with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - the examples given all take unrelated articles as justification for an article to stay up. The existence of Further Away shows this EXACT type of article exists already, not similar or totally unrelated as your example shows, but the EXACT same. The fact you offered this as a counter argument suggests you are either being very disingenuous or don't know the first thing about the subject matter. Also, have you noticed how I'm giving you extensive replies, and yours are pretty much one-liners with stuff that's not even relevant? So far you have said things that are clearly false and other things totally unrelated.Apeholder (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP if the other single mentioned above is also the same thing as this single is, then why is that somehow accepted but this isn't? We need a complete discography. Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.147.104 (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— 109.78.147.104 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more substantive input. Previous relist failed to actually transclude this to the July 20 log so it got lost
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirct per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. A WP:BEFORE search shows little to no sources, and if the article is to be kept, then the unreliable references (Discogs, Rate Your Music, etc.) need to be removed, but I'm inclined to redirect. Tails Wx (they/them) ⚧ 08:14, 16 August 2023 (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.