Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voyager: Sounds of the Cosmos

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voyager: Sounds of the Cosmos[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bootleg release with questionable notability. Has a mere four references, three of which are links to the Google page for the project itself and the other being an About.com article on ambient recordings which doesn't even mention this particular release; more than half of the article is completely unreferenced. A quick Google search (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) only shows links to Google and Facebook pages for the release and no links to reliable third-party sources. Viewing the history of the article, the primary contributor to the article appears to be the creator of the work himself, which has been pointed out several times by other users on this article history. Thus, the article seems to be an apparent violation of WP:SELFPROMOTE. Holiday56 (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the article is to be deleted, don't reason it on self-promotion. I didn't create the article. Someone else did. While notability is a factor I can't argue with, this article shouldn't fall under self promotion. Hell, an anonymous user revived the article aswell! RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 08:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I did notice that you redirected the page at one point, and an anonymous IP revived it. Regardless, lack of notability is still a major concern that I have with the article – glad you understand the notability issue. Cheers, Holiday56 (talk) 08:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. A bootleg from a non notable artist that lacks independent coverage. Where's the notability? duffbeerforme (talk) 10:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references themselves are questionable. I'm not seeing any GNG throughout the article. There's certainly a lot of info, but unless we're able to get some reliable sources to back up this information, it's going to fail on that policy at minimum. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 13:36, 17 August 2013 (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.