Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Refused 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 keep. John254 00:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refused discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete unecessary fork from main article on band Mayalld (talk) 07:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It is standard practice to split off long discographys from the main article. There are plenty of FL-Class Discography articles that are shorter. It needs tidying not deleting. --JD554 (talk) 10:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge. Creating an article to spin off material that would take up too much space in another article is perfectly acceptable. Whether that is required or whether the material should be put back where it came from is up for discussion, but deletion would result in the removal of valid material. _ Mgm|^(talk) 13:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Refused's notability is established in the main article. They've released enough material to justify a new article for the discography. Teemu08 (talk) 17:04, 24 December 2008 (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.