Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burn Like a Candle

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 keep. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burn Like a Candle[edit]

Non-notable bootleg —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of the most famous Led Zeppelin bootlegs Edelmand (talk) 01:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if WP:NALBUMS says that bootlegs are assumed to be non-notable until proven otherwise and nothing on this page establishes it to be supremely noteworthy.

"Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good sources and seems to be considered important by Zeppelin fans. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are reliable sources cited within the article attesting to the album's notability. Edelmand (talk) 10:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are thousands of Led Zeppelin bootlegs. Only a select few have articles on Wikipedia. They exist because they are notable bootleg recordings. And not just to Led Zeppelin collectors. These recordings are cataloged and collected by bootleg traders all over the world and some have even sold enough to rank on regional sales charts. GripTheHusk (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Seems to be notable to its fan base, and is sourced to indicate that. Fuzbaby (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NALBUMS, non notable bootleg. Artyline (talk) 00:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with User :Artyline: WP:NALBUMS states that bootlegs "may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." The article demonstrates independent coverage of this bootleg in reliable sources, which have been cited. Edelmand (talk) 11:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those sources discuss the concert, not specifically the bootleg, so notability not established. Artyline (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lewis and Pallett (1997) and Rey (1997) provide commentary on both the concertsand the bootleg. Edelmand (talk) 02:32, 28 June 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.