Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Time Rush 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 redirect to Big Time Rush (band). I'm going to do a little IAR and redirect this, as the charts need to be copied over, and the history may be useful eventually. Courcelles 22:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big Time Rush discography

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

Redirect and A10 reverted because someone thinks I should discuss it. What needs discussion though? 100% of this is already on the parent article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the valid, policy-based deletion rationale iiis...? Ironholds (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Redundant content fork." Simple enough. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's one album here and the usual list of unnotable web singles without notability. Absolutely no need for this at all. Nate • (chatter) 19:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete The purpose of this article is to list the releases by American pop group, Big Time Rush. There are references used as notability. It should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VP44444 (talk • contribs)

But the same stuff's already on another article. Does redundancy mean nothing to you? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A discography article for one album? Really? It simply just content forking, as it is already on Big Time Rush (band). Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no need for a discography for one album. Jclemens (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Don't Delete~~ Big Time Rush (band) no longer has it as it has apparently been moved here. You can check. There will be albums soon, so don't worry if there is only one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VP44444 (talk • contribs)
LOL. You only get to vote once. Merge and redirect to Big Time Rush (band). --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no need to waste space for one album. All of this information can found on main artist page. Main article itself isn't even terribly long enough to have a split discography. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 18:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe if they had four albums, then maybe, but still not now.intelati^(Call) 21:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with other editors above - no need for this. PhilKnight (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect neither the main band article nor the discography page are big. Maybe split after one or two more albums are released. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:39, 28 September 2010 (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.