Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Art of Dying (Ca$his album)

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.

Clearly not in favour of keeping; consensus seems split on merge vs redirect. Since the relevant text already is in the target, redirect. L Faraone 14:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Art of Dying (Ca$his album)[edit]

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

I had no intention of bringing this to AfD, but I was forced to by two editors working in concert with each other. This album fails notability under WP:NALBUMS. It was an album by a barely notable artist that failed to chart and failed to garner much coverage. So I redirected it to the artists page, which is exactly what the guideline says should be done. The sources used either show the album exists or talk about it before it was actually released, in an interview, making it more of a primary source. Neither editor has engaged in any discussion, just tag team reverted it. I did attempt to discuss it on the article talk page. I intended to leave this as a redirect, as I could see it being a viable search term, but these editors have forced it here. To be clear, my preference is that this be left as a redirect to the artist page.Niteshift36 (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Accusing two editors that have disagreements just like an others of being "in concert with each other" is not assuming good faith. I do not know why you select this one rappers articles to be up to higher standard than others. The two HipHopDX sources are reliable sources and an interview is not a primary source. I took this here for the principle of you trying to redirect the article 5 times without taking it to AfD. The album borderline passes WP:NALBUMS, being released by a notable artist as their debut album is significant. I will say Keep. STATic message me! 22:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One reverts and the other one helps. Looks concerted to me. So what? Did you ever try to discuss it? HipHopDx is a RS, but it's an interview with Cashis. That makes it a primary source in this case. They're not reporting anything except what he said. And it's one source used twice, not two sources. Yes, I redirected it more than once and invited discussion. You two have been "all or nothing" all along. And he's not being held to a higher standard. (Please don't give me a list of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS examples. Focus on this artist.) NALBUMS makes it clear that just being released by a (barely) notable artist doesn't make the album notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one helped anyone, do not start with the conspiracy theories. A primary source would be their official site, Twitter, Facebook, MySpace stuff like that. There is also no list of anything? I have no idea what you are talking about it sounds like you're listing random policies to try to prove your point. It would be deferent if the article was just a tracklist like NALBUMS says, then it would be a clearly a redirect, but this article actually has content. STATic message me! 22:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know what a primary source is. But when all you do is print what the subject says about themselves, you effectively stop being a third party source. You become, in effect, a primary source. You're no longer reporting, you're repeating. And a few lines about who is on the album or why he was late releasing it doesn't make it much more than a track list. And you can't cry about AGF while making silly allegations about random policies. I've used the same guideline all along here. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This album is clearly notable enough for an article, if Cashis is notable enough to have an article then his debut album is too. There are many many more non notable album articles that you should be worried bout other then this one, and to be honest Niteshift36 sounds like he has some personal beef with Cashis that is getting in the way of the correct guidelines. Koala15 (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A personal beef? Do you realize how absurd that sounds? WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is an argument to avoid, yet here you are making it. NALBUMS is clear that notability isn't inherited and an album doesn't become notable just because it was released by a notable artist. If it was "clearly notable" we wouldn't be here. Maybe you just have a case of WP:ILIKEIT. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were the one accusing people of tag teaming on you. You should not be talking about absurd things. Maybe this is just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. STATic message me! 05:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I did say it. Still not convinced that isn't the case. That's a long way from claiming I know him and have a personal beef. However, let's say for a minute that it's not true. How does it make his allegation less absurd? It doesn't. As for your I don't liek it idea..... maybe that would make sense if I wasn't backing up my reasoning with the guideline. Since a completely uninvolved editor has already come in and agreed with me, we've clearly moved past where it is only me, negating your I don't like it claim. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or re-direct to the artist's page. Whatever else is happening here, the album failed to chart and appears to lack sufficient notability for its own article. --Stormbay (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to artist's page. I see no coverage about this album that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to artist bio. Fails WP:NALBUMS. The title is not a plausible search term, but considering the time it has existed a redirect is appropriate. Also concerned about some of the ownership issues I see here as well. Wikipedia is not a place for gushing fancruft. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cashis. Some encyclopedic content but not enough to justify a standalone article. Verifiable content can be merged to the article on the artist. --Michig (talk) 08:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in the pursuit of consensus, or, if there is no new material here, re-direct to the artist's page. --Stormbay (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC
Redirect to artist's page. A separate article beholds no additional value, the background information is identical to what is written on the artists page. Agendapedia (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2013 (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.