Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Gillan discography
Even setting aside the point that "unreferenced" ≠ "unverifiable" and thus that is not a valid deletion argument, I don't even understand the claim that this is unreferenced. A list of published works, regardless of the medium, ''is'' a list of references. It seems that there are nevertheless people who get confused by the simple fact that we are listing published works for their own sake rather than using them to provide citations for another article topic (and yes, we do Template:Cite album-notes|cite to albums themselves as reliable sources). When you are given sufficient information to identify the published work (title, author, and date are often enough, though more is helpful) there is no need to add a reference from ''yet another'' published work to prove the first published work exists. We'd otherwise have an infinite regression of sourcing. If the complaint is instead simply that there is no reference to verify that the discography is complete, that's not only irrelevant to deletion, but it's also easily fixable by linking to the musician's entry on Allmusic, for example. As for the "forking" complaint, at best this would be merged back to the parent article and so should not have been brought to AFD at all per , because the Ian Gillan biography does not contain this discography but instead only links to it.  alone would seem to indicate that ting this off was a wise decision, however
— User:Postdlf, 18:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:ATD||WP:SIZE||WP:SPLIT (Wikipedia:Deletion policy)