Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Side Show Freaks
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 Redirect to 40 Below Summer in lieu of deletion. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 09:48Z
- Side Show Freaks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Nom - fails WP:MUSIC utterly non-notable album, self-released, only 1000 copies ever made(!), no sources Rklawton 15:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no indication this passes WP:N or ever will. Seraphimblade 15:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - seams to meet WP:MUSIC 'Though this guideline is somewhat controversial, the general consensus on notability of albums is that if the musician or ensemble that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia.' However the fact that only 1000 copies were ever made seams to show a lack of notability. 2720 google hitsRyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Comment this music group really seems to be pushing the boundaries of what constitutes "notability." Another admin just speeded one of this group's other "albums" with less than 100 disks pressed. I had posted it for AfD at the same time I posted this one. Given the controversial nature of the album guideline, I don't think we need to stand on formality. I'm hoping a bit of common sense will prevail. Rklawton 02:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Weak delete - WP:MUSIC is a controversial issue with respect to albums, but 1000 copies released shows lack of notability RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per working consensus on albums that notable acts get albums. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment actually, the section to which you refer states specifically that it's controversial. I wouldn't call that a working concensus, and 1,000 albums pressed (no mention of actual sales) really begs the point. One might even argue that it doesn't even qualify as an "album" since it's self-released. Rklawton 02:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not citing anything here, other than reality. And the fact that it's self-released isn't all that relevant. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment actually, the section to which you refer states specifically that it's controversial. I wouldn't call that a working concensus, and 1,000 albums pressed (no mention of actual sales) really begs the point. One might even argue that it doesn't even qualify as an "album" since it's self-released. Rklawton 02:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:V and WP:N. Addhoc 10:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Incredibly limited release, little notability. The reasoning behind the usual "albums by notable artists are notable" argument is the tendency of notable artists' albums to be written about by multiple nontrivial reliable sources; this particular album, however, is not likely to have said sources. GassyGuy 08:41, 8 February 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.