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 Martin Page. (non-admin closure) — TheMagnificentist 06:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Temper of Peace[edit]

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

Was deprodded without improvement, with the rationale, "it is notable enough". Currently poorly sourced with one non-rs and the non-descript track listing at the indiscriminate AllMusic site. Searches turned up virtually nothing in-depth about this album. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect ~~Delete~~ - per nomination. It fails the WP:GNG. AllMusic, while hypothetically a reliable source, doesn't help meet the GNG when its just a bare tracklisting with no actual prose about the album. Open to changing my !vote if someone can provide some better sourcing. Sergecross73 msg me 19:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with a redirect too, as it would be a viable search term. Sergecross73 msg me 19:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Look. i'm not a fancy Wikipedian who knows all the rules, but I created this article myself and if you are going to delete it, can you at least redirect it to my own user page? I spent hours creating this article and its sister articles of his other albums (In the Temple of the Muse, Hotel of the Two Worlds, and The Slender SadnesS). I do not understand why you are targeting this article rather than the other ones, because they also have the same notability and source issues as this one. But, again, if you are going to remove this article I implore you to just redirect it as my own article, as it is something I created and I have a passion for. Or heck, why don't you just improve the article so it meets the guidelines? Mackerni888 (talk) 05:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - unfortunately, notability isn't something which can be "improved". Something either meets notability standards or it doesn't. When I did my WP:BEFORE searches, I turned up literally nothing on this album. No major in-depth coverage from any reliable, secondary sources. And regarding other articles, that's called a "other stuff exists" argument, which is not really valid in this instance. Wikipedia is monitored by volunteers, so it's not unusual for an inappropriate article to slip through the cracks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You can request to WP:USERFY the article, should it be deleted, from the Admin who ends up closing this discussion. I do understand some of your sentiments - I too find it random that "album number 4 of a collection of 5 from an artist" is randomly selective for deletion. But that is the prerogative of any editor who has a good-faith concern about any article's notability. It may seem random, but I wouldn't play up that angle, because, if anything, it may inspire people to nominate the rest for deletion as well. Also, to be clear, the nominator usually argues for an article's deletion because they feel its impossible to improve - third party sources covering the subject in detail are required, and if no journalists ever discussed or reviewed it, it literally cannot meet the requirements of having an article. If you can present sources like that, you can argue that it should be improved rather than deleted. But if there's no evidence that any sources exist, then that argument won't work. Sergecross73 msg me 12:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then, yes, I do request the article to be WP:USERFY. But more than just that. If you are going to delete A Temper of Peace from Martin Page's discography page, I also request that all his other less-notable albums also get deleted and WP:USERFY as well. In fact, the only notable album Martin Page ever created during his solo career was his first, In the House of Stone and Light, and being able to 'userfy' these pages would grant me certain liberties to write what I want on them. Plus, it would be awkward and inconsistent if this album got removed but the other ones didn't. If you choose to only delete this article I will see to it that this article and the others end up as user pages under my name. I understand the reasons of notability and I'm honestly surprised these articles didn't get deleted before. I knew there wouldn't be enough reliable sources but I was banking on people overlooking this fact. I'm sorry for knowingly and willingly violating the terms of conditions of this Wikipedia... In my defense, I must say, that this is my favorite musician and I am biased to keep information like this relevant, exactly because of how less-notable he is to the public eye. But I do have plenty of user pages already created, on local information and I do want this information saved on it. Mackerni888 (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - First, might I suggest that you add the information from all the album articles to Page's article. Then you can simply redirect the pages there yourself (or ask for help on how to do that). Second, regarding the arbitrariness of this nomination – I came across the article during my daily NPP (New Page Patrol). I was unaware of the other articles. It's as simple as that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep General consensus is for musicians who have released enough notable albums (and Page has had at least one hit the charts), we're okay to have an album per article. Otherwise, redirect to Martin Page. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't apply to this situation though - as the article creator noted, all 5 of the album articles seem to lack the third party, reliable sourcing necessary to meet the GNG, and 4 of the 5 never charted either. (And the outlier only managed a meager "161st place peak".) That's not enough to warrant a free pass for all album articles to exist. Sergecross73 msg me 19:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Martin Page as is typically done with nn albums where the artist's article exists. Insufficient reliable independent coverage to justify a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2017 (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.