Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/…And in Closing

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 Delete. Fram (talk) 09:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

…And in Closing[edit]

Non-notable release (demo). No reliable sources are available for the band or the tape itself. No critical commentary exists. There are no reliable sources that confirm it was ever actually released. The only notable aspect of the tape is Matthew Good's involvement, but there are no sources to confirm the details of his involvement. (Per WP:MUSIC.) ChrisB (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for identical reasons:

-- ChrisB (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:MUSIC, demo tapes are inherently non-notable. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 01:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These demos are well-known within the Matthew Good fan community and deserve recognition as releases. There are few sources with which to cite these early demos because Matthew Good himself has only recently started to acknowledge their existence. Previously, he denied them ever having existed to dissuade people from purchasing them illegally from a former bandmate who released them on a 2-disc set without permission. The law-suit has been settled in favour of Good and he has even offered up a few mp3s from these old demos up on his website. They are also notable because they represent his earlier folk-based roots, to which he has returned on his more recent solo endeavors (see Hospital Music).

The Foo Fighters' first demo Pocketwatch (album), had the same story up until a few years ago when they decided to include a reference to it on their official site. Simply because an artist does not wish to acknowledge their earlier roots does not mean that the rest of us have to deny any record of them. Leave them up. Please. - Haircut-Rabbit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haircut-Rabbit (talk • contribs) 18:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pocketwatch is a bad comparison. Unlike all of Good's demos, Pocketwatch was released on an actual label, Simple Machines. Furthermore, the tape has been repeatedly mentioned in sources that recount the history of the Foo Fighters. There was no need to wait for it to be mentioned on the official site - it could have had its own article regardless.

We're also not saying that the demos can't be mentioned in other articles, eg Matt's or the discographies (which should be merged, btw). They just aren't notable enough to deserve their own articles. -- ChrisB (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:26, 8 April 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.