Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eighties Matchbox Original Two Track Demo

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 The Eighties Matchbox B-Line Disaster. No argument in support of keeping this article, but redirected per plurality argument per WP:CHEAP. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eighties Matchbox Original Two Track Demo[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable demo recording. --wooden superman 12:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - First, the article title is wrong, as the name of the record is simply "The Eighties Matchbox B-Line Disaster" (same as the band). That should be fixed if the article is kept. Regardless, it should be deleted because the album received no significant coverage in reliable sources, and can be mentioned as a minor historical event in the band's biography. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NSONG. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Eighties Matchbox B-Line Disaster - seems a bit of an obscure search term, but not blatantly implausible. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a search term at all because it's not the title of the record, so I humbly argue that a redirect would be a nonsensical waste of resources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I reverted two vandal edits today that will still be stored in disk somewhere that use more resources. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is one of two issues in my last comment. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Ritchie333. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:53, 10 November 2018 (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.