Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bump 'n' Grind (The 69 Eyes album)


 * 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 69 Eyes discography. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Bump 'n' Grind (The 69 Eyes album)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Quite clearly non-notable. Laun chba  ller  18:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:Music Google found no sources outside of this aside from it being on sale at Amazon and lyrics sites. The fact that it was released by a major band does not count as "an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article."-- Church  Talk 18:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  19:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  19:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - references in Google Books (such as Le Rock de A a Z dictionnaire illustre 1984 p.318) refer to Bump 'n' Grind (Jackson Heights album), a classic album recently reissued in Japan, not to this album. But then this is a Finnish band and a debut album by a notable Finnish band is going to be more difficult to dig up sources than a 2014 album. This is 1992 and we are already biased enough to WP:RECENT to not be deleting articles simply because 1992 is pre-Internet. The Italian Heavy Metal book in the article sources only lists this debut album while giving full coverage to two later better selling albums, but debut articles are still interesting and we wouldn't be deleting this one, we'd only be merging to a The 69 Eyes discography article anyway. What's the point? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A quick look at it.wp fi.wp sv.wp Italiano Suomi Svenska articles don't reveal more sources, but do suggest that this is not just an en.wp topic. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to The 69 Eyes discography per WP:NALBUM - " Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting". No prejudice against recreation if the notability In ictu oculi assumes can be demonstrated but an article consisting of a track listing is of no encyclopaedic value whatsoever. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 07:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Suriel1981 do you know how to merge a cover jpg into a band article? What about the rest of Category:The 69 Eyes albums? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The cover photo is a non-free image - it will have to be deleted if there is no article for it to illustrate. I don't know what is likely to happen to the rest of the articles in that category. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 08:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to The 69 Eyes discography. Not significant discussion of the album presented in RSs.  AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 11:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * User:AdventurousSquirrel I wonder are Finnish newspaper arts pages from 1992 online anywhere? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the argument I think you're trying to make, and I agree that you have a worthwhile goal in mind, but the supposition that RSs covering this album in nontrivial detail exist in printed format is entirely hypothetical at this stage, right? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 09:20, 27 November 2014 (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.