Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/50 Cent discography

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 Speedy keep, obvious consensus reached per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

50 Cent discography

Unnecessary content fork, little more than expansion of 50 Cent#Discography. Blueboy 96 19:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep It is normal for an artist to have their own discography page if it can not be merged into their own biography. Spellcast 19:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Adds a fair bit of reasonably notable information over and above the discography in the article (which is only a listing of the albums themselves, and cannot, as noted above, be reasonably expanded further). Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 19:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I dont mind if this article is kept or deleted. If it was to be deleted, I would have to suggest that we merge all of the information in it into the existing 50 Cent article, e.g. the release date, sales etc. --The-G-Unit-Boss 19:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that the 50 Cent page is 41 kb too long and adding everything from the discography makes it about 60kb. That's what Category:Discographies is for. Spellcast 19:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definite Keep. The information is notable, and merging would make the main 50 Cent article too long. Useight 19:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep discographies are encouraged. They are not content forks. No valid reason for this to even be at AFD, as merging is a talk page discussion. --JayHenry 19:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an attempt to get an additional page for the same material. If presented more compactly, it would fit perfectly well in the main article. DGG (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I noticed you said the same thing for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/50 Cent filmography. There is a big difference between the need for a discography and a filmography. This discography is obviously needed because it's too big to merge in the main article. But the filmography page isn't needed because it's repeating what's already said in the the main page. Spellcast 21:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per JayHenry. As 'Fiddy' is primarily a music artist, and a notable one at that, a separate discography is even preferable to inclusion in the main page. Eliz81 20:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Almost every notable music artist has his or hers own discography,so why shouldnt 50 cent? there is no reason for this to be up for deletion - Real Compton G 21:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep it is common for music artists to have a separate page for a discography, rather than cluttering the article. Dave101→talk 21:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is why God invented forks. the_undertow ^talk 22:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep you keep it on the page when the artist has 4 cds, or 5 books; not when there's this amount of information. --Thespian 00:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No apparent (to me) reason why this is unacceptable. hateless 00:18, 19 July 2007 (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.