Man Alive (band): No coverage in RS, also by NEXIST.  Promotional writeup.  Circular sourcing, for example here: On June 11, 2012, it was announced on the band's Facebook page that the band has decided to record a new album.  , i.e. the band member(s) make "announcements" on FB then quote themselves on WP.  Has already twice been deleted at Hewiki.  No updates since 2013.  gidonb ( talk ) 02:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Music ,  and Israel .  gidonb ( talk ) 02:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to their only notable album Open Surgery (album) .  Broc ( talk ) 12:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That is the reverse of the usual procedure, because there would then be an orphaned album article with no connection to a band.  The fact that the one album got some reliable reviews might actually enhance the band's article, but not by much.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 14:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Doomsdayer520 while it is true that the usual case is a notable band and a non-notable album, here we likely have a case of WP:ONEEVENT .  The album contributes to the band's notability but not enough to fulfill any WP:BAND criteria.  Broc ( talk ) 15:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: I'd like to hear more opinions on this discussion.  Doomsdayer520 is correct, we typically turn non-notable albums and songs articles as redirects to a musical group's page.  I have even seen articles deleted because there was an album article but no article on the band.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Liz I'm honestly not sure about standard for albums, but for books I have at least an example (because I was involved in the AfD) where we redirected the author to the book: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Houston (mathematician) .  Broc ( talk ) 12:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: We still need more opinions.  The nominator is advocating Deletion and an editor argues for a Redirect to an article, Open Surgery (album) , that is also at AFD.  Two or three more points of view would be helpful.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to album (if the album survives the AfD).  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 02:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Normally I would be indifferent about an AfD for a mid-level band like this, but talking about redirecting the band's article to one of their albums , just because that album got a whopping two reviews that anyone can find, is downright absurd to put it lightly.  The album reviews have some basic band history that can be used to support the band's article: [38] , [39] .  Also they have a reasonably robust AllMusic biography: [40] .  Here's a little more news from one of the magazines that reviewed the album: [41] .  That's enough for a stub article for the band.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 12:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] These are niche sources, not RS.  Then again, the album has been kept under the same.  AllMusic rewrites what artists send them.  gidonb ( talk ) 03:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Arguments are divided between Delete, Redirect and Keep.  By the way, right now, it looks like AFD discussion on the album will close as Keep.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Redirect to kept album.  There's a boatload of uncited assertions on this article, but no claim of notability.  I disagree with User:doomsdayer520 there's enough upon which to base an article on the group.  What we're missing is actual reliable sources directly detailing, and I'm not seeing anything approaching that standard so far on the page or in a reasonable BEFORE.  There's nothing to keep here, no sources with which to describe the band.  The album was a bare pass; based on sourcing, the album is sufficient coverage.  BusterD ( talk ) 12:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Probably not supposed to contribute to this discussion as a prior band member, but interesting to hear the process here.  The album was notable to me, lol.  135.23.150.249 ( talk ) 22:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and maybe merge the album to the band article.  ThreeBootsInABucket ( talk ) 00:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Why?  What about notability?  gidonb ( talk ) 03:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  The album should have been deleted and should still be deleted.  Yet, for as long as it is kept, there is of course no problem with a redirect with prejudice against the notability of the band.  This is written in response to Liz 's relisting comment way back: The nominator is advocating Deletion and an editor argues for a Redirect to an article, Open Surgery (album), that is also at AFD.  gidonb ( talk ) 03:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : as the album article has been kept, the only viable options are "redirect/merge" or "keep".  Mach61 19:31, 18 March 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus