Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demo (Missing In Action)


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Demo (Missing In Action)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Self-released demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NALBUMS and wp:gng --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:MUSIC says no such thing; misrepresenting the contents of a guideline is disruptive, whether this subject proves notable or not. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Question: Am I missing something here? On wp:music: "Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is in general not notable; however, it may be notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources"
 * Given that the article is unsourced, what's wrong with the nom? --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're missing something. "Unreleased" and "Self-released" are entirely different concepts. Nominator has a history of misstating the terms of WP:MUSIC with regard to demos. If the material has bee released, regardless of who released it, the presumption doesn't apply. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see what you're saying. I suppose I instinctively take "released" to mean something more than "released on the band's Myspace page and on homemade CDs for free, without being mixed nor mastered" --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Non-Vote Comment: Whether this is a demo, self-released, not-really-released, or whatever, that requires some good faith investigation which the nominator probably didn't do, for about the 500th time. With all this talk about guidelines, certain people around here keep forgetting a certain guideline known as WP:BEFORE. I might actually vote against this particular album article, if the AfD nomination was legitimate. -- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 19:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply: I did a variety of google news searches trying to find anything about this "release" via myspace and homemade cds, and found nothing in reliable sources. Just a mention in a non-notable blog.   --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's cool, and your points are well taken. But the problem with this whole process is that you did the research that the nominator was supposed to do. If you were the nominator and your initial argument included the points from your comments here, and if it was more than the automatic seven words we got from the actual nominator, I would probably vote to delete. But procedurally, I don't think this nomination deserves to receive votes. -- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 17:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete: Demo's are not notable, no sources given. -- sk8er5000 yeah? 05:50, 6 July 2010 (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.