Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fabric discography
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Speedy keep per WP:SNOW (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 08:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fabric discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
I don't see how this is notable. Is really necessary to have this article in Wikipedia? Basically, are a bunch of CDs released by a club of London. And probably is a copyvio (songs have copyrighs).--Tasc0 02:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I dind't nominate the related articles because it's a big list (the two series). If this results deleted, please delete them. Thank you.--Tasc0 02:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep This was on AfD about a month ago (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fabric_albums): the result was unanimous keep and the new reasoning makes no sense: How is a discography a copyvio because the songs are copyrighted? Huh? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not know about that nomination.--Tasc0 18:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. And probably is a copyvio (songs have copyrighs) <- if this were a valid reason for deletion, we'd have no articles on CDs. humblefool® 04:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What I meant is that they released the CDs without permission of the copyrights holders. Just burned the songs in CDs. That's what I think.--Tasc0 18:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the songs are licensed (and even if they weren't that wouldn't be Wikipedia's problem). It seems like you think these are promotional CDs handed out at the door of the club or something. They aren't--they're internationally distributed mix CDs compiled by some of the most famous DJs in the world. Courtesy demands that you do a little research (like, see if there was a prior AfD) before putting something up for AfD like thisP4k 23:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, you're saying that with out baking it up. Second: how am I supposed to look if the article was already nominated, huh? Maybe checking "What links here" but, it is the job of the administrator as courtesy to put that information in the talk page.--Tasc0 03:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah I guess it wouldn't be obvious since the AfDs were for the individual albums, not the discography. This is still a shitty nomination though.P4k 03:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, but that does not give you the right to insult here. Please manage your words. Thank you.--Tasc0 03:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah I guess it wouldn't be obvious since the AfDs were for the individual albums, not the discography. This is still a shitty nomination though.P4k 03:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, you're saying that with out baking it up. Second: how am I supposed to look if the article was already nominated, huh? Maybe checking "What links here" but, it is the job of the administrator as courtesy to put that information in the talk page.--Tasc0 03:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the songs are licensed (and even if they weren't that wouldn't be Wikipedia's problem). It seems like you think these are promotional CDs handed out at the door of the club or something. They aren't--they're internationally distributed mix CDs compiled by some of the most famous DJs in the world. Courtesy demands that you do a little research (like, see if there was a prior AfD) before putting something up for AfD like thisP4k 23:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What I meant is that they released the CDs without permission of the copyrights holders. Just burned the songs in CDs. That's what I think.--Tasc0 18:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. No rational argument for deletion. The albums are notable and this discography is encyclopedic.--Michig 07:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, please don't renominate an article a month later without a stronger rationale than the prior nominator used. Another example of why we should have a moratorium following a "keep" AFD. The one weakness the article has is sources for notability, but those are not generally something that lists have (that is, they are subarticles of a notable topic). --Dhartung | Talk 08:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep, clearly notable. For example, many of these albums have been reviewed on Pitchforkmedia and Popmatters (example, example). The nomination doesn't make much sense. 96T 12:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. Groundless nomination. I don't think it takes much more than a spoonful of common sense to realise that it simply isn't possible for one of the most popular nightclubs in a city to release 76 illegal CDs and still be in business. - Zeibura (Talk) 18:15, 6 October 2007 (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.