Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Past Time

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 Eva O. Spinning Spark 14:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Past Time

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

Pointless stub on a non-notable album, which fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. The only ref is to allmusic.com, which is just a bare track listing.

This page is yet another piece of tendentious disruption by User:Jax 0677. It was created at created at 14:40 on 26 March, less than 3 hours after {{Eva O}} was nominated for deletion (at 11:54). I PRODded this article, but the PROD was contested by Jax, even tho he made no assertion of notability. So other editors have to waste time with a full AFD on a clearly non-notable album :( Jax should stop this cycle of disruption, or he will face sanctions.

Note that I have also AFDed another article on an album by the same artist: Damnation (Ride the Madness) (see AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damnation (Ride the Madness)). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was a tough call. My initial reaction was to just redirect to Eva O. However, I feared that with the title "Past Time", that it would more likely pick up users who were actually looking for pastime than it would people looking for this album. Under the Principle of Least Astonishment, I think the best course of action is to delete. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 15:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or merge LOSSLESSLY) - A disambiguation page with either "Past Time (album)" or "Past Time (Eva O album)" can solve the "principle of least astonishment". Per this discussion, the album and its details should (at a minimum) be merged LOSSLESSLY into Eva O. Also, WP:BRD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I have lost count of the number of recent AFDs in which I have seen Jax commenting. In none of them have I seen him pay any attention to the basic notability criteria at WP:GNG, and he remains true to form here.
  It's also a pity that Jax yet again misrepresents Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Merging_of_non-notable_albums. There is no requirement to merge, let alone to merge losslessly. The guidance at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#If_the_subject_is_not_notable remains that info on non-notable topics "may be included in other ways in Wikipedia, provided that certain conditions are met". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - There is plenty of space in the article for track listings and album details. Therefore, now that it is on Wikipedia and properly sourced, it should not be removed so long as the artist or ensemble is notable. If the article becomes too large, then this falls under a size split. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply A size split does not allow the creation of articles on non-notable topics. Jax should stop his disruptive rampage of repeatedly creating articles on clearly non-notable topics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply - How are artist discographies/awards/song lists by themselves notable? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Please try to stay on topic. This is not an AFD for a discography. It is an AFD for an article on a non-notable album ... one of many such articles on non-notable albums which you tendentiously create, without making any attempt to demonstrate notability. Please stop it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I am staying on topic. WP:NALBUMS says "space permitting". For similar reasons, albums and discographies can be split off. IMO, a discography page should rarely/never be written about a non-notable artist, and usually is only done if the discography takes up most of the page (5FDP discography), or the artist page becomes too big (One Direction discography). There is no encyclopedic reason for not including the track times somewhere on Wikipedia. I have not created an article on a non-notable album in some time, even though WP:BRD allows me to do so. In fact, the notability of some of the albums that BHG nominated is being corroborated slowly but surely. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. WP:BRD does not allow you to repeatedly and calculatedly create articles on topics where you have produced absolutely no evidence of notability. I really strongly suggest that you stop doing so, or you will face sanctions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Reply - I have not created any album articles in the past 24-48 hours. My prime direction has been merging the album to the artist article. Again, if this is true, why do we have award and discography pages? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, not notable. Frietjes (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eva O, there is absolutely nothing to merge. J04n(talk page) 01:02, 5 April 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.