Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Decade of Silence


 * 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

A Decade of Silence

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Another non-notable bootleg, fails WP:MUSIC. Karppinen (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep wp:album I believe if you have this many famous musicians on an album, which features that many hit songs, then it counts as notable.   D r e a m Focus  17:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I searched www.billboard.com for one song, and this is what I found.


 * Position 26 Peak 10 Weeks 4
 * Tupac Featuring The Notorious B.I.G.
 * Runnin (Dying To Live)

Got into the top 10 on the Billboard. The rest I believe were hit singles also.  D r e a m Focus  17:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment But this album seems to be a bootleg. According to WP:MUSIC - "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." This album has not any kind of significant coverage. Karppinen (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - having loads of hit songs on an album means nothing if it is a bootleg thrown together illegally and sold "under the counter". I could compile a CD with 20 or 30 million-selling singles on it, burn a few hundred copies and sell them at a car boot sale, but that wouldn't make it a notable album -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How can it be bootleg? If it charts on the billboard, and is sold as an album, then its legal.  I don't understand where the bootleg thing is coming from.   D r e a m Focus  22:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This album has never charted on any chart in Billboard (2Pac's hit albums are here). It was also produced by a company that does not own the rights to the recordings on it, therefore it is a bootleg and not legal -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Amazon.com has it listed, but says its an import. And the guy died years ago, so its odd he'd be releasing anything.  Alright then.  If it is a bootleg, then it violates copyright law, and should be deleted.   D r e a m Focus  22:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 2Pac's released far more material since he died than he ever did during his lifetime :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

*Delete, non notable bootleg. Deletion Mutation 15:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)  N.B. !vote of sockpuppet of blocked user struck through. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, an unremarkable bootleg. Some bootlegs are notable enough to have articles, but as this one seems to have minimal third-party coverage, it's not one of them.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: unremarkable bootleg, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 08:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.