Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mono Puff

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 John Flansburgh. (non-admin closure) Ab207 (talk) 13:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mono Puff[edit]

[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)

Found passing references with regards to John Flansburgh's involvement, but WP:NOTINHERITED is in play here. The only sources presently are all WP:PRIMARY (Flansburgh's blog, liner notes to the albums), and further searching yielded almost nothing useful. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given the scarcity of substantial refs, merge & redirect to John Flansburgh TheLongTone (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to John Flansburgh. This act has a small amount of notice as a famous person's side project, but not enough to merit its own article. Can be mentioned briefly at Flansburgh's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It probably makes the most "sense" to merge to Flansburgh, although I note that one can retrieve enough citations from RS on Mono Puff via databases like ProQuest to make the Mono Puff article better sourced than the (current) Flansburgh one... Caro7200 (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That simply means that Flansburgh's article can be improved, not that Mono Puff is notable on its own. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, the most important policy states that topics may be notable if there is in-depth, substantial, reliable, and independent sourcing--everything else, including my above comment, is preference and consensus. Again, I don't particularly care--which is why I didn't "vote" or proactively add references; it's more that AfDs catch my eye where coverage is going to be in print sources. Caro7200 (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that reads more snappish than I intended it to. Caro7200 (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with John Flansburgh: Place it in the "Side projects" part of the page. If notability improves then it can be split in the future. Gusfriend (talk) 06:28, 6 March 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.