Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Welcome to tha chuuch mixtape vol.1

Add links
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 of the debate was delete the whole lot. - Mailer Diablo 02:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to tha chuuch mixtape vol.1 and others[edit]

Also note Snoop Dogg minor albums, bootlegs and mixtapes, where the material under discussion here has now been coped to Pilatus 18:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above are unofficial Snoop Dogg mixtape releases. For the uninitiated, mixtapes are unofficial underground releases, usually featuring hip hop music, R&B, reggae, etc, which are hand-made and distributed through the underground scene without the use of a major label (see http://www.hiphopspot.com/index.php for a mixtape retail site). Most mixtapes are used to promote material that is either available on actual studio releases or will be at some future date. For the purposes of this encyclopedia, I don't think mixtapes can or should be given their own articles, primarily because anyone can make a mixtape that features the music of any artist (even the artist themself). Notice that Welcome to tha Chuuch - Da Album is not listed; it is an actual official release. --FuriousFreddy 13:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom --Quarl 14:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom -- Jbamb 14:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Fails test for notability. Next we'll be having iPod playlists for articles.Endomion 14:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, I see the first one is listed at amazon.com, mtv.com and yahoo online, which seems to refute the idea that they are distributed 'underground'. This appears to be a block nomination which hasn't examined the details of each item. Kappa 14:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first is available from an Amazon.com marketplace seller, not by Amazon. Amazon cannot legally carry the album. The listings at MTV.com and Yahoo online may be because of confusion: this is not an official and actual album, and neither are the rest. I examined each and every item, and I guarantee I know what I am doing, so do not ass. These are mixtapes, not actual albums. I wouldn't mind a (that is, one) scholarly article on the Welcome to the Chuuch mixtape series, but the articles as they stand are not only uninformative, they are poorly written and formatted as well. The other mixtape articles, however, should be deleted on site. Otherwise, I should have 50 mixtapes for various music artists printed up and distributed, and force their inclusion here as articles. --FuriousFreddy 15:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know that sellers like HMW merely republish catalogues. 81.193.185.151 16:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • HMV is a reputable source. If it says that the item was produced by Snoop Dogg, then it is unreasonable to deny without good evidence that the item was produced by Snoop Dogg. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wish! They slap the catalogues they receive on their website, and when you actually go and try to buy the thing after eight weeks they tell you that they can't get their hands on the thing. What this say is that someone said that that is by Snoop Dogg. No one denies that that bootleg tape has Snoop Dogg on it. What people say (if you have read the AfD page) is that tons of bootlegs - with and without Snoop Dogg - exist and that no one cares about this particular one. Tony, we are tired of your campaign against WP:V! Pilatus 20:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • The mixtapes verifiably exist; I'm sure if you order one, they'll send it to you. However, the point is is that they are all unnofficial and are not produced by Snoop's record labels, but by any odd number of DJs looking to make money for themselves. Official, professional quality studio albums these are not. Any DJ can make a Snoop Doog mixtape and sell it. --FuriousFreddy 21:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry for being unclear. What I meant is that sellers like HMV don't vet the catalogues they receive from their suppliers for accuracy or update their own listing for availability. If a record publisher runs out of a low-volume item the article will remain in the HMV listing until someone tries to order the item through HMV and they are informed that the recording is no longer available. Pilatus 02:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • The question of whether the albums are "official" (whatever that means) is immaterial, completely and utterly immaterial. Wikipedia doesn't exist to act as an official copy of the catalogs of record companies. If the albums verifiably exist (and existence on a HMV catalog is ample evidence of this, then their existence should be recorded as part of the encyclopedic work concerning the artists involved. I regard this mass AfD listing as ill-conceived because of that misunderstanding. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Don't know what's going on here. User FuriousFreddy has just tagged all of Snoop Dogg album entries, that I have created, as articles for deletion. And when I say all I mean ALL. Including The Welcome to tha chuuch series, which are as official as Doggystyle so to say, They are released under Doggystyle Records and I think that the mesure of right to exist can't be nothing else that the artist released it under his own name, his own label, with fully new tracks, that he has worked with many other artists, and you say "Okay, off with them, they didn't reach platinum" (from that point of view 5 albums would remain in total...). We could delete every page containing albums about all the not-so-commonly-known rappers. Or does he have to reach a higher standard because he's popular? That's what you call free artistry? Is it some kind of vengeance against a newcomer, who dares to edit and collect every minor album an artist has recorded. I thought an encylopedia gathers every information possible about persons, facts, and related material. For example there are some entries already on Snoop page that reached the number one search spot on Google when looked up (it doesn't mean it doesn't exist on several search results on the later pages). Wikipedia is not just a travel guidebook or a pocket dictionary of some sort. And I would like to ask those persons who never listened to Snoop Dogg in their lifetime to decide carefully, because It is some kind of incompetency to just read about his tracks but not to listen to them. Please consider this. Lajbi 16:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Welcome to tha Chuuch releases (save for the last one) are all mixtapes. They are not official albums, and they are not released by Doggystyle records; they're released by other companies. It appears that Snoop may endorse them, in the sense that he allows them as long as he gets payment, but there are literally thousands of mixtapes out there that do the same. Any and every DJ in the industry can and probably does make mixtapes, all of which are illegal, and many of which bounce the same songs back and forth across dozens of releases. Encyclopedias don't gather every bit of information on everything. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We only need articles on official legal studio releases, not underground mixtapes (because there are, as you see, dozens of them). And even if we did cover them (which we don't; Wikipedia is not hiphopmixtapez.com), we'd need more than a tracklisting and a spam commercial link for purchasing to warrant their inclusion. All of Snoop's studio albums, compilation albums, and official soundtracks can stay, the mixtapes must go.--FuriousFreddy 16:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • to FuriousFreddy : I do not deny that these are Mixtapes. I 've never done so. But for example their importance can be seen on examples like :
1. they contain several EXCLUSIVES, for instance the only cooperation between Usher and Snoop Dogg (not just their voices mixed together!!!) and Sean Paul and Snoop (not just their voices mixed together!!!) can be found on them.
2. They indicate that Snoop didn't disappear between Doggystyle and R&G (according to your high level expectations only these two album are "listened" enough)
3. That Snoop doesn't exist only in the U.S.A. Welcome to tha chuuch is distributed mostly in Japan (as indicated from the Google search scoring), Street Dance releases are from Denmark and can be bought in Europe (I got mine in a FNAC shop, France) just to name a few
4. They ARE released by Doggystyle (the older Doggystyle page mentioned them, the new is not yet ready), and there's the Doggystyle trade mark on all of them (If it wasn't so, there will be some sort of charges against their release, that you would hear about, and they couldn't be sold on Virgin Megastore, Paris for example)
And the reason why you can't fund much reference and reviews about them is because they aren't popular enough. Is this music-section about pop-music or what? Please don't be so narrow-minded (that is for all of you)
Challenge: if you find those tracks that you said just bouncing around the music industry, then go on and find some other source for those songs, if not, they are only released HERE. (none of the tracks from the "solo studio albums" as you call it, are included in them)Lajbi 16:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Buddy...any collaboration (not "cooperation") between two artists is nothing but their voices mixed together. Heck, most of the time, the artists aren't in the same studio or even the same city. --FuriousFreddy 21:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And Pleeease do not question sources like MTV ("they are confused...") because if you do so, there is no more thing to argue about... Lajbi 16:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you've already deleted them? Shouldn't we wait until the end of discussion? Lajbi 16:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This whole thing started when OGTV2 got back. Please control yourself!!! You've been voted down there. Lajbi 16:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them all (or merge if someone really wants to). It's bad enough that pointless official compilations and greatest hits albums get articles, we don't need unofficial pointless compilations as well. Tuf-Kat 16:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raw N Uncut is on Billboard.com. Ooh come on!! You select them by your own taste of music. And Tuf-Kat please read the whole list, you say no for twenty-some albumsLajbi 16:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, let's sort out the films too! Those that have not been watched by a million people, or just an underground release, or being released by Snoopadelic films need to be deleted. What about that?? Lajbi 17:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand what you're saying. I read the whole list and voted to delete. Billboard.com is not relevant, and I don't know or care what Snoopadelic films are. Tuf-Kat 17:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That wasn't a nice one. Don't know- then why are you voting?. Don't care - now that's a good attitude. Did you visited any of the links? Older Doggystyle.com enlisted the chuuch series and there's reference to Snoopadelic films too.Lajbi 18:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you feel that Snoopadelic films are somehow relevant, please explain your reasoning. I shouldn't have to guess at your reasons for voting to keep an article. What does "Older Doggystyle.com enlisted the chuuch series"? Tuf-Kat 05:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Lajbi: I haven't been voted down anywhere; you control yourself, please. I put off this cleanup task for a long time because I needed assistance in doing so (which I haven't gotten, but that's another story). So I am taking care of it myself. MTV gets soem of its album data from AMG, which is hardly a flawless source of info, and is highly confused at times. Mixtapes are illegal. I never said Doggystyle and R&G are his only important albums, nor did I ever imply such. Ever album Snoop ever released on an official major label should indeed be included, and I have cleaned up his article and the discography to reflect such. I don't know what mixtape rules are like overseas, but in the USA, they are illegal, and would never be on sale in any major retail store (only mom-and-pop and underground stores...and, of course, on the street and on the internet). And when I said "bouncing around", I mean that (and several of your articles specifically state this) that many of the mixtapes include songs from other mixtapes. Mixtapes by default aren't popular because you have to go through special circumstances to try and find them, because they are, indeed, illegal. If you want to help make Wikipedia a better, professional, product, I would strongly suggest you take some time out to learn more about the scope of what is and is not included here, how to format pages, how to write stub articles that assert notablility (and not just existence), and how to not give four frantic replies to a user when one calm one will do.
In addition, I enjoy Snoop's music, and have not selected anything by "my own taste in music". Simply put, if it was obviously unofficial and not released by a label Snoop has released material through (Death Row, Priority -- Snoop was technically signed to Priority when he was releasing through No Limit, Star Trek, and Koch) or a soundtrack to an official film release, I listed it here. Just becasue it exists doesn't mean it needs an article. I'm sorry.
In closing, Several of the Snoop Dogg singles articles need heavy cleanup: Gin and Juice, Let's Get Blown, Signs (song), What Would You Do (single), Who Am I, 2 of Amerikaz Most Wanted, Lil Ghetto Boy, Let Me Ride, Dre Day. I would strongly appreciate assistance in improving these entries.
As far as films go, it's probably best not to write entries on each and every direct-to-video release Snoop has ever put out (for example, the Welcome to the Chuuch DVD has already been listed in the above group). Now, if you're asking for me to sort through them for notability verification, I will most certainly do so. A million people aren't required to have seen or bought a movie to warrant its inclusion, but at the same time every $3 DVD that Snoop appears in doesn't need an article here. We don't run a fansite.--FuriousFreddy 17:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Either in their current form or merged with redirect. We don't delete articles about Snoop Dogg productions, even bootlegs. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not even if Snoop had nothing to do with them? So you want Wikipedia articles on every bootleg and every mixtape that features a major label rapper in hip hop history? (because, otherwise, it doesn't make sense to keep these) --FuriousFreddy 18:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There isn't even proof that Snoop has had any hand in any of these tapes. Man, get a grip on WP:V! Pilatus 18:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • For Pilatus.Are you reading an other article simultaneously? Do you really want to write this one at this discuss? Hey, Snoop drop the rapverses on the tracks. There's nothing to argue about that. As I said you should really hear them. I will check some site where you can play samples of them. Or you can do it yourself before writing such nonsense.Lajbi 20:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to FuriousFreddy:The major problem is, you did it your way. You want people to vote about a bunch of albums, not letting them to decide one-by-one, so if one agrees with OGTV2 for example, but not the DJ Jam stuff, he could indicate it but he won't (as Tuf-Kat did). They will just see the list and vote. They see one wrong edit and they vote "no". So don't hurry the process. I'm sorry that you didn't find assisstance for months, but that's not my problem. Sorry about my style too, but how would you feel, if someone deleted all your entries done. And finally I don't know why are you trying to make an example of Snoop there are way too many sites that are stubby but could stay. And it's okay like that, they will improve with enough time. About the single : some of them are made in my earlier edit and I came round that they are badly-edited, but I have no assisstance neither to clean them up, so I decided to do them sometime (as I remember I asked you to assist me...). The newer one are not "that bad", are they? They are made copying non-stubby single articles' style. But this debate is not about them. Don't take it personal! I did take it, because of your manner of "deletion-madness". You could leave a message on my talk page before doing such a huge step (step back?). So please, change method in reaching your goal. Just because you have more rights, it doesn't mean you just take a bunch of edits, and throw it into the dustbin (without information gathered from them). Lajbi 17:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't speculate about me. I looked at the entire list and voted to delete them all because that's what I wanted to do. If there's something special to know about DJ Jam - WBALLZ 187.4 FM Vol.1, then please note it in the article and I may change my vote, but probably not. Tuf-Kat 17:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That wasn't a nice one. Don't know- then why are you voting?. Don't care - now that's a good attitude. Did you visited any of the links? Older Doggystyle.com enlisted the chuuch series and there's reference to Snoopadelic films too.Lajbi 18:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The question isn't if they exist or not. The question is if they are of significant importance to have Wikipedia articles, which they are not. --FuriousFreddy 18:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I left a message on your talk page a month ago. You didn't do anything about it. If all of the articles have the same problem, there's no point in listing each and every one seperately. --FuriousFreddy 18:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And we could start a new dispute about the "clean-up" (I mean "clean-down") you've made with the Snoop page. You are just deleting all the time. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, no? You deleted the half page. Without summarizing the content information lost. Lajbi 17:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article has been tagged for cleanup for quite some time. I removed unneccessary trivia that wasn't all that relevant to Snoop, moved factual information into the main body of the article, and organized what was left. If you would like to help, the table of singles is highly incomplete, and I can't sort through the list of Snoop videos you provided to determine the years of release and chart information. Help make Snoop's coverage on Wikipedia more accurate by expandign that table with the relevant information. --FuriousFreddy 18:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • What is unnecessary trivia. I need a definition. But not a one that you make up...Lajbi 18:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Anything that isn't important or relevant to a large group of people. In general, trivia for any article should be kept ot a low miniuum. I do not believe I deleted anything that was important to this article, and would graciously ask for some of the other users to give their opions as well. --FuriousFreddy 18:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And if mixtapes are illegal, and G-Uint has an official mixtape DJ (DJ Whoo Kid) then how can that happen? And if it's legal in Europe, then it is nothing? It is a worldwide page, isn't it? Open your mind, I say once more. Lajbi 17:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe G-Unit mixtapes are actual endorsed albums that are made to sound like mixtapes. Then again, maybe not, since I tried to look for DJ Whoo Kid mixtapes and found I had to go to specialized websited to do such. Even if they are legal overseas (which, as international copyright violations, they shouldn't be), we don't need articles on them. The articles had no content as it was; only tracklistings. --FuriousFreddy 18:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You don't know the law as it is written to state the mixtapes are illegal and neither do I. And you shouldn't delete something because YOU think it is a bootleg, or because it is labelled chuuch mixtape.Lajbi 18:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Wikipedia article on "mixtape" states that they are indeed illegal, although the DJs ususally aren't prosecuted. I know it's a bootleg, because if it weren't, it would be on sale in a regular legal venue. All a mixtape is is a heavily promoted bootleg. --FuriousFreddy 18:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • And is a mixtape illegal if it is released by the artist himself, and on the label owned by the artist? If you listen to ANY of the mixtapes, Snoop talks in the intros,interludes and outros that these are HIS mixtapes. He mentions the album name, his record label name, and the forthcoming projects. I have an example for the inverse to your "Bouncing theory". In Welcome to tha chuuch vol. 2 it is the premiere of the 213 song "So fly", with a Snoop introduction, the only change that has been made to it in the later Hard Way album is that they cut out the intro so it starts with a sudden beat. Lajbi 19:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • If a mixtape is released by the artist themself, it depends on the songs included (where they were recorded, when they were recorded, and who owns the master recordings) to determine whether or not the mixtape is legal or not. This means that you'd have to check each and every song on each and every mixtape, and make sure not a single track reappears on any other album or mixtape anywhere in existence. And mixtapes aren't too keen on not including previously or soon-to-be released material. Regardless of the legality, we don't need articles on every Snoop Dogg mixtape in existence. He's released plenty of real albums between 1993 and 2005 that have Wikipedia coverage, so no one thinks he dissapeared during that period. I've never listened to any of these mixtapes. You know why? They are illegal, and I'd have to go through special circumstances (such as ordering them from untrustworthy online retailers -- I've heard horror stories about mixtape websites) to try and get one --FuriousFreddy 19:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • As I said you can get it at Virgin Megastores or FNAC (you can order them online too). Are they trustable and acceptable distribution networks for you? (They are also in External links). Please forget your preconceived ideas and bad recollections about mixtapes. You really don't have to go to the outskirts to buy them from an armed smuggler. At least next time don't do so.Lajbi 20:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • I can't get this Virgin Megastore (which sells bootleg imports as it is anyway). This has nothing to do with my personal preference; this has to do with maintaining an encyclopedia. When you understand that, you'll understand why these articles need to be deleted, reguardless of whether they exist or not. --FuriousFreddy 20:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • We have different ideas about encyclopedia. All that I'm saying is we should keep the chucch series at least, because they exist and you couldn't cite a source that doesn't say they are released by Doggystyle records. Remember, some people vote against deletion because articles are grouped together. They must have a reason to do so. And that word usage remark that you've offered to me was a cheap shot, I don't expect you to speak Hungarian fluently, Do I? It is enough for me that you understand what I tend to say. Lajbi 21:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I didn't know you didn't speak English fluently; sorry. However, this isn't about my idea of the encyclopedia vs. your idea; this is about what the Wikipedia in general has already been doing, which is writing articles only on official releases with verifiable information that aren't just stubs with tracklistings. --FuriousFreddy 00:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of these articles and ban whoever created them. Paul 18:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all random unofficial compilations. If any of these are non-random certainly the article would say why they are important. WP:V, folks. Pilatus 18:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You REALLY deleted the films. And from what point of you. It is you who need to justify your deeds.Lajbi

Comment to Paul : Please think before hurting anyone. I'm not a vandal. Lajbi 18:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per all the above. Flyboy Will 19:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per community consensus, the deletion policy, and Pilatus. Nandesuka 20:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per all above ComputerJoe 21:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa. These should be individually nominated. -- JJay 21:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? Group deletion nominations are not uncommon here, and it would be tedious for the voters if I had nominated each one seperately, and they had to go around to each nomination and keep casting the same vote. If you read any of these, and think that any one establishes any sort of notability that the others do not, or is otherwise notable, you can say such here. Otherwise, seperately listing two dozen articles about almost identical subjects for the same criteria doesn't make sense. --FuriousFreddy 21:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Pilatus. Xoloz 22:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and sanction Tony for wasting all our time. Ambi 22:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be fair, the wheel war that Tony got himself into was around OGTV2 - From Tha Hood to Hollywood, which was deleted here as some dude's bootleg and then summarily ressurrected by Tony because, you know, AfD and VfU is wrong and keeping good content out of sight. Pilatus 23:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pilatus, could you explain what you mean by "wheel war?" I haven't warred over this at all. I simply saw a clear case of AfD making an obviously bad decision, and then performed an undeletion. I have not warred with anyone over this, but anyone who claims that there is a wheel war is obviously believed different. I'd like to chat person to person with whoever it is that has propagated this false statement, in the hope that we can sort it out.
    • Meanwhile attempts to delete the article in question clearly haven't a hope in hell of succeeding while so many other (presumably verifiable) articles are also listed. The system is broken if it destroys such verifiable information rather than considering merging it to another, more comprehensive article about an obviously widespread an encyclopedic phenomenon surrounding such a prominent exponent of rap music as Snoop Dogg. I say this as someone who knows almost nothing about rap but has known who Snoop Dogg is for well over a decade. Wikipedia will not delete this permanently. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It isn't "some dude's bootleg", it's the soundtrack of a DVD presented by Snoop Dogg and some dude. Kappa 23:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Pilatus You're kinda arrogant, disrespectful and dulling everything into black and white. Snoop knows Daddy V very well, agrees to get involved in Daddy V's mixtapes (Not just a guy who wants to make money using Snoop's name)and they have recorded track together (like OGTV main theme). They can be seen working together in a studio in the Welcome to tha chuuch DVD promo sample video that can be downloaded legally for everyone on westcoast2k. Please do as much research as I did before calling him "some guy". I haven't seen OGTV, but I bet it would be like a brainwash to you. And by the way as I wrote in OGT2 talk page, I have read on MTV that Daddy V is in talks with them about launching his own show called "OGTV". But it doesn't worth looking it up, because you delete everything about "that guy". Okay, he's not a superstar (but you aren't neither, so please...) Lajbi 23:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Ambi and Pilatus It wasn't Tony, It was me who debated throughout the whole page. If you want something address it to me. Lajbi 23:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per User:FuriousFreddy and User:TUF-KAT. Jkelly 23:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nomination. A general article on Mixtapes is encyclopedic. This should certainly be a section of the Snoop Dogg article and perhaps a single branching article for this artist. Durova 00:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't argue against a "Welcome to that Chuuch mixtape series" paragraph in the Snoop Dogg article, if notability other than general existence can be established. I would, however, argue against said article including each and every tracklisting and direct commercial links to where to buy the tapes. As for the other mixtapes, they should be done away with, before we have a Nas or Jay-Z or (God help us all if it happens) 2Pac fan come along and do the same for their hero. --FuriousFreddy 00:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Another surprising fact about me:I'm 25, and I don't believe in heros any more (Oh sorry my grandfather is a hero), and the word "fan" was used in my user page as a self-irony (as you probably didn't read). Before you start to object what I said I know you were just talking about "some people". But you should be aware that mixtapes sales are in upsweep tendency, many DJ-s started with them and become famous and still releasing mostly mixtapes. There will be a point, where you can't avoid them any more some time in the near future. Lajbi 00:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, that point isn't now: they're still illegal, they're still ususally unnoteworthy, and, unless discussing "artist beef" and such, they're not really much of a point to discuss them in an encyclopedia. And, no, I didn't read your user page. --FuriousFreddy 00:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • From now on you can change anything you want I don't care. No hard feelings! Lajbi 00:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could someone explain why the question of legality has been raised? I notice, and now that I see it I'm quite, utterly, shocked by this, that the Bob Dylan article barely admits the existence of the many bootleg recordings that were made of Dylan's work in the early seventies--items which fed the Dylan cult and led to a peculiar and distinctive form of Dylan fandom. This is a very, very palpable omission from that article. But with these articles that we're discusing now, we're not even talking about illegal material, but material that has been released with the sanction of the artist, Snoop Dogg, who has gone out of his way to promote his own local brand of rap. Why on Wikipedia should we ever consider statements such as "this is not an official and actual album" when clearly there is material in the form of an album? Are we to say "there was no asesmbly on that day" because the legal authority in Peking on a certain day denies the existence of a popular protest?" --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{sofixit}}. You made an excellent point. Bob Dylan bootlegs are part of Dylan fandom and some are well known. Now the material under discussion here is a stack of mixes amongst hundreds of others. As I said above, if any of the mixes here was important stuff the article would say so and it would be kept. The question if the music here was issued with The Dogg's blessing or not is rather irrelevant. Pilatus 15:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly. No notability other than existence (and commerical links) are established. Bootlegs, mixtapes, and the like don't need articles (or even mentioning) unless they are notable factors in something like a hip-hop rivalry or such. Do you really understand just how many Snoop Dogg mixtapes exist, how many new ones are created and distributed within a year's time, and just how many aren't even listed here? Do you understand how many mixtapes exist for any given popular rapper? Do you understand just how interchangable and individually indistinct each mixtape's tracklistings, etc. are? This is where the line needs to be drawn between "encyclopedia" and "indiscriminate repository of data". I didn't join this project to write articles about CD-R's pressed up in some guy's basement. If bootlegged songs are ever released to the public in special packages (The Lost Tapes, The Bootleg Series Volumes 1-3 (Rare & Unreleased) 1961-1991), mention them there. It's also not that big a deal to have an article on Snoop Dogg mixtapes and bootlegs, minus the individual tracklistings and plus notability, significance, and historical context (if they exist). But that bundle of warez up there almost made me quit the project because of just the sheer size of the problem, and the lack of response when I asked for help with doing cleanup. --FuriousFreddy 16:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per FuriousFreddy. And Tony Sidaway's hyperlegal parsing and po-faced proclamation of innocence regarding his unilateral overriding of process ought to be condemned. --Calton | Talk 01:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Allow me to join in condemning it a second time. Mr. Sidaway's pattern of abusive behavior, and contempt for the well-reasoned beliefs of others, is growing too pronounced to be permitted long to continue. Xoloz 17:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per FuriousFreddy. android79 03:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as per FuriousFreddy. -- Kjkolb 07:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect those that relate to something notable, delete the rest. Zocky 14:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all they're mixtapes, not official releases. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above; mix tapes don't deserve their own articles, nor do they deserve a merge. Ral315 (talk) 18:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as per above. --King of All the Franks 18:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. It is very possible that I have not found all of them, and that mixtape articles may exist in other places as well. Can we make mixtape articles (excepting any that are highly notable, and have verifiable scholarly referenced proof that they are ) speediable (speedy delete or speedy redirect, doesn't matter, though I'd prefer a delete to prevent recreation), or should I just bring them to AfD the normal way? --FuriousFreddy 18:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Ahem Apparently Tony Sidaway has taken it upon himself to make one large, ugly (and still poorly formatted) copy and paste merge of all the tracklistings at Snoop Dogg minor albums, bootlegs and mixtapes. Crap like this are good reasons that people that could contribute to Wikipedia don't. Tony, you know better than this (and unless I'm mistaken, I think he may have blocked me as well -- I can't post while logged in). --FuriousFreddy 17:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. --NaconKantari 17:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • FuriousFreddy, I haven't blocked you and wouldn't contemplate doing so. Indeed I made a comment on two talk pages recently requesting explanation of some of your recent edits. I agree that the new article is a mess; obviously I think the material belongs in individual articles. I find the statement "Crap like this are good reasons that people that could contribute to Wikipedia don't. Tony, you know better than this" uttery inexplicable, as inexplicable as indeed I find the original listing for deletion. It's utterly mind-boggling. This is verifiable material about a major artist. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Verify it with a real, dependable source (like the kind Wikipedia is supposed to use), and not a commercial catalogue website. Mixtapes, random compilations ,etc. exist for any number of artists. Does that mean that we write encyclopedia articles on them? C'mon, I know you know better than this. I am almost certain that that eyesore of a merged article is unneccssary (and I really should add it to this list). Snoop's mixtapes are just about as verifiable as the numbero f pairs of shoes and cars he owns, etc. Wikipedia quality is already on a wane; we don't need ot be crowding it with underground CD-Rs. Also, in case you don't realize it by now, Snoop was actually only fully involved in maybe 30% of those mixtapes -- the rest are DJs using his name and image to make money for themselves on the side, so there goes your "verifiable material from an artist" excuse. --FuriousFreddy 18:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tony, you couldn't know how mixtapes work if you're trying to push for keeping these articles in any form or fashion. It would be a good thing to have an article on Snoop Dogg underground releases that, using verifiable sources, lists (no tracklistings) the mixtapes he himself was actually fully and directly involved in making/approving (if any) and/or covering any important underground songs contained on any of them (in many cases, one song will pop up on dozens of mixtapes). This is a travesty. I've fought tooth and nail trying to improve Wikipedia's once woefully poor coverage of hip hop, R&B, and soul music-the least you could have done, as an administrator and an apparent long time user, was done some research and reaize just what the heck you're doing, instead of going "oh it exists; here's a link to where I can buy it at" (first mistake) and trying to bend rules and make edits/articles you know better than doing (and to what end I have no idea). (And even then, if you wanted to bend rules, why not clean up the articles before merging? Why the text dump?) My WikiBreak just might turn into a breakout if I am to look forward to coming back to globs of consolidated and poorly formatted Snoop-cruft (at least the Mariah Carey cruft was, if nothing else, decently formatted and informative (if overly so and coated with a thick sheen of POV). And after I put off my day's tasks yesterday trying to give Lajbi a tutorial on how to become a better editor, and how his edits/articles could be improved. --FuriousFreddy 18:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmmm, in some cases we have very little information about these unofficial releases other than the outlets through which they have been made available, and the track listings. I see absolutely no legitimate reason to remove a track listing from the information about an album. I also remain unconvinced by the arguments that the article about these unofficial items should be deleted. The "Welcome to Tha Chuuch" series, in particular, inspired an official release, and so it would arguably be best to merge the information to the article about that official album. These items are for the most part easily verifiable (and where they're not then a case can be made for deletion) and the information should not be deleted from Wikipedia without an extremely good reason. No reason, other than personal attacks and palpably false accusations against me, has been presented to support this mass listing for deletion. The only person who has attempted to make a constructive response--myself--has been vilified. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks to me like Tony took the step he felt necessary to start an article on Snoop mixtapes. Maybe you could help add sources. In the future, please individually list each mixtape for deletion and make your case based on the merits, instead of complaining about formatting. The artists doing this work and the editors creating these articles deserve a minimum of respect not condescension. -- JJay 18:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. PJM 18:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Under no circumstances should mixtapes be mistaken for albums. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -Doc ask? 20:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to the last days' development (?) in the debate:
  • I'm not a kid or A guy, I'm 25 and my name is Lajbi. Preferred to be called that name.
  • Yes I collect Snoop CD-s I bougth some of the mixtapes in France (and saw the others too) and (oh my God, it may happen that illegally) purchased the rest. It was a hard work and took several years, and I listened all of them, and I can make a difference between what is fake and what is not. (Right now I'm not giving reasons for keeping I want to make clear I'm not just a naive fan)

Small summary of the debate:

  • 1.It's been said that they don't exist - now the links show different
  • 2.It's been said that they are illegal - while there's no charges brought against the DJ-s by Snoop or by the F.B.I. or the RIAA, and can be bought in several stores, this isn't proved to be true. Not to mention that the 7th chapter is distributed by Sony BMG.
  • 3.It's been said that they are unofficial - there are several cases when official mixtape DJ-s work for artists (DJ Whoo Kid for Shady/G-Unit, DJ Exclusive for Aftermath, and most of all DJ Clue, who produced several number one hits' beats), the CD-s are released by Doggystle Records (others like the Gutta Music release are from the New No Limit). Maybe they are just called mixtape to sound more underground. And for the chuuch 1-9 series there are no DJ name indicated. Because they are Snoop Dogg releases not unknown DJ ones who try to make easy money.
  • 4.It's been said that they are not notable. They contain mostly unique tracks by a large variety of artists, these albums are the original and first (!) appearance for those tracks and the series led to a "solo studio album" release. Not to mention that the 7th chapter is distributed by Sony BMG. They have a reason to do so.
    Lajbi 21:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. the wub "?!" 23:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per the above. Yes, they exist. No, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Radiant_>|< 00:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/comment: Keep: <delete/long comment> after thinking this over more than 3 times for the last 2 days,(and changing my vote), I've finally decided that they should be deleted... (with the posibility of being brought back)... though I indicated:
keep the information and merge the useful stuff all under one article called... dunno Snoop dog... If Symphony No. 9 (Beethoven), which is an artist work, can be listed on wikipedia, than we should be able to keep these articles (in comparison to Symphony No. 9 (Beethoven) they should all be stubs) make a sub article for each album like snoop dog/album title..
I also indicated further on in my previous comment:
humm... then again, wikipedia isn't supposed to be a collection of lists is it? Nice work, but if we had an article about boot legs maybe... Preferably we would pick the best of this artist and try and comment on those songs (with research... don't just make a list of songs but add critical comments that can be found in the news about these songs... if there is none, then perhaps a delete might be warranted. But then that would require an anlysis of each one) perhaps before deletion... (if)... we should transfer the information to wikisource? --CyclePat 01:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My afformentioned comments seems to co-incide with WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information:
Lists of Frequently Asked Questions. Wikipedia articles should not list FAQs. Instead, format the information provided as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s). You may want to consider contributing FAQ lists to Wikibooks.
So, what I am saying, is that, though I have attempted to compare this with the precedence of Beethoven's 9th symphony. Beethoven's 9th appears to be full of information with adequate sourcing. These present articles, up for deletion, have may have a potential for expansion. (Probably not, but who know's maybe someone has written a novel, or some news articles on the album songs.) However, it will probably be hard to find non-original research that analyses the music in those tracks. Essentially what I am getting to, is, will these articles be expanded? I looked into precedence for this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents#Music and I agree with whomever wrote this page. (though it is not wikipolicy) This stipulates that:
Albums are notable, but please provide the name of the band, and more info than a mere tracklist
Furthermore:if you follow the link Wikipedia:Notability (music) provided a little further down in the text from the above quote, you will notice in the 2nd paragraph that when it comes to notability:
the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true.
Though this appears to be in the context for musicians, I believe it is as true and applicable for their respective albums or even bootleged albums. So my conclusion: Expand the articles to have news paper clipings information, etc... talk about the songs, etc... or unfortunatelly move to wikisource and delete. (Currently, I'm not convinced that they're posibility for improvement to the article in time before this delete is over so I think it will be deleted.) Again, I strongly encourage the admin. that will probably be deleting these articles and the information to move them to "wikisource" or "wikibooks". --CylePat 00:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment (already voted) I really can't understand why some people are voting to keep. How could DJ Kool Kid : Snoopdaville - Da' Unreleased vol. 1 ever be expanded beyond a few sentences of filler, an infobox and tracklist? Tuf-Kat 05:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • THe feeling is mutual. Why are so many people voting to delete neutral, verifiable information? Because the items aren't "official"? That means nothing to Wikipedia, it's just somebody's name on a piece of paper and doesn't stop artists producing useful work (for instance the mixes that 50 Cent did after losing his contract with a record company,that resulted in his being signed up by Shady Records...oh but those have been listed for deletion too.) This whole nomination strikes me as a "Wikipedia is getting full up! Stop now!" panic. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe people are voting to delete these entries that are undoubtedly verifiable because they feel that Wikipedia is not a good home for track listings of minor recordings. This is an encyclopedia that relates what secondary sources have said about a thing, not a repository for first-hand data. The fact that this is a large volume of data on a very specialized and ephemeral subject may also play a role in peoples' voting behaviour. It certainly did in mine. Pilatus 17:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above. Not encyclopedic, etc. Panic is when you delete something upteen times rather than let MfD finish, or restore it umpteen+1 times rather than let DRV finish. This nomination and debate is not "panic", but it's nice to see that casting aspersions on the mental state of anyone who disagrees with you is alive and well. - brenneman(t)(c) 16:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above. NeoJustin 04:52, December 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all per above. WhiteNight T | @ | C 07:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. His basement tapes are important, just not to us.Flakeloaf 08:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to CylePat and to Everyone.
According to the Wikipedia:Notability (music) :

"Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country". This criteria is for musicians but it is simply applicable for albums too as they can be considered as a "subcategory" of a musician's article. From this point of view the Dogg Pound Mix (for example) should be kept because as a Street Dance Records release (that means European distribution) it charted the Switzerland Top 100 Album at the place 81 in 2005 (that would mean a larger amount of record sales) [1]. It can happen that it is only an endorsement of Snoop, but it doesn't falsify the fact that it contains Snoop Dogg recorded tracks It is released with Snoop's agreement and is popular (=so notable).Lajbi 14:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:MUSIC applies to performers, not recordings of any kind. I very much doubt there'd be consensus to apply all those guidelines to recordings. Tuf-Kat 22:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment:I think I have to agree with TUF-KAT on this. We should not jump out of context with my use of the quote from WP:MUSIC. The section I quoted talks about notability and appears to be more of an introduction to the main subject of "musicians." The rest of the article should not be brought out of context to accomodate "recording-artists." Now, if these recordings where all done by pure hasard by the same DJ, it may be convenient to have a small bio on this "recording engeneer," and include all these albums as a list of "see also." Again, they would have to have a significance to the "artist" that created them. As for the #81 on the Switzerland list... perhaps that information should be added in the appropriate album or song section and would hence add credible information to give that one article enough substance to avoid deletion. Finally, I think the problem here is that we are treating all these articles as one. I read through one and it appears to be fair, and stipulates more information than just a list of songs on an album. However some others, like this one, are simply a list of songs on the album. I think what we want to do, with the current information and knowlege we have, it to valurize the artist. To do that we need to add more information than just a list of songs on an album. There is no reason we can't do like my above example, of Beethoven's 9th, but we must have some information on the subject. Currently the articles appear to be anemic on this and I don't think there is any room for much improvement at least for a little while. (as I stipulated, merge the information under the artist, wikisource or wikibooks, (place them on your user page, or whatever) and when there is enough info about those album, more then a list, then perhaps incorperate into wiki. --CylePat 00:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Tuf-Kat : Then let's make one! Is it so impossible to accept that at least a few albums of this group nomination could be taken out for some reasons? In case of Dogg Pound Mix you should really agree the exception. I'm trying to reveal some proof where it is possible.Lajbi 23:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you'd like to try and build a consensus for this, bring it up at WP:MUSIC's talk page. If there is something specially notable about Dogg Pound Mix, it needs to be explained in the article (that's a WP:MUSIC rule as well), and if all you've got is a #81 hit in Switzerland, well... that makes Snoop Dogg notable, sure, but not this article. Tuf-Kat 00:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, this is not a place for mixtapes --Jaranda wat's sup 18:11, 29 December 2005 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Welcome_to_tha_chuuch_mixtape_vol.1&oldid=1082347445"