Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live Phish Downloads: 06.07.09
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 delete. Cirt (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Live Phish Downloads: 06.07.09 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable music download Chzz ► 12:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. What makes this different from all the other live show downloads that jam bands put up? TheWeakWilled 14:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not delete. Whether or not it's different from other "jam bands" isn't the issue. The following was on WP:NALBUMS regarding non-notable recordings: "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums". And this release does not fall into any of those categories. Therefore, I do not agree with this or any other Live Phish Downloads release being deleted. Rjvaughn1979 (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a bootleg. TheWeakWilled 16:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a bootleg. Bootlegs are released without the artists' consent and are in effect illegal. These recordings are sold by the band and are considered "official" as such. Rjvaughn1979 (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all bootlegs are unofficial, and most aren't illegal. This is similar to what Linkin Park, Pearl Jam, the Allman Brothers and Disturbed do, they release the concert to download or as a CD. If it is part of a series, the series may be notable, but an individual recording isn't. In fact, I wouldn't be suprised if more Phish recordings get AFD'd. There also has to be WP:RS provided for each album.
- This is not a bootleg. Bootlegs are released without the artists' consent and are in effect illegal. These recordings are sold by the band and are considered "official" as such. Rjvaughn1979 (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a bootleg. TheWeakWilled 16:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It wouldn't be practical to make an article for every official live recording/bootleg released by artists. Wikipedia would turn into bootlegapedia. TheWeakWilled 17:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 15:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The definitions at bootleg and bootleg recording would definitely not include this recording. Both say that bootlegs are recorded without the artist's knowledge and distributed without their intent. This recording, and all Live Phish releases, are soundboard releases obviously recorded with the band's knowledge, and released through their official live download site. I fail to see how this could be considered a bootleg. — MusicMaker5376 19:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So articles on each individual bootleg/live recording listed [1], [2], [3], and all the other artists that sell their live concerts online can be created and exist? TheWeakWilled 20:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently. "If the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." — MusicMaker5376 21:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So articles on each individual bootleg/live recording listed [1], [2], [3], and all the other artists that sell their live concerts online can be created and exist? TheWeakWilled 20:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The only source that I found for this was the article itself. Joe Chill (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I also did a search and could only find one source. If there are more sources out there, I'd be willing to change my vote to Keep. TruthGal (talk) 06:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources:
- http://www.glidemagazine.com/hiddentrack/review-phish-find-their-footing-in-camden/
- http://thebutterroom.com/post/122353055/review-phish-camden-nj-6-7-09
- http://fromtheroad.phish.com/tour/2009-06-07-susquehanna-bank-center — MusicMaker5376 21:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are about the concert and not the subject of the article which is Live Phish Downloads: 06.07.09. Joe Chill (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They're about the subject of the recording. — MusicMaker5376 22:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. Maybe someone should have created an article on the concert instead of the non-notable recording. Joe Chill (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Or how about an article that encompasses all of Phish's Official Bootleg Recordings? If MusicMaker5376 was to write that article, I think I'd support it. TruthGal (talk) 07:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. Maybe someone should have created an article on the concert instead of the non-notable recording. Joe Chill (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They're about the subject of the recording. — MusicMaker5376 22:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources:
- Such an article would be extraordinarily long: http://livephish.com/catalog.aspx — MusicMaker5376 13:48, 23 August 2009 (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.