Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Detroit Dogshit


 * 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.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Detroit Dogshit


is this notable? its certainly not very interesting. Xorkl000 07:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:MUSIC. MartinDK 08:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weakest of all possible keeps. Esham is a notable artist and one could argue that a compilation of his early songs defines a specific style of music. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Cleanup, poor article, but as an album release of a musician who passes WP:MUSIC, it passes. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Esham. Mallanox 19:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Albums generally get their own articles. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be inclined to give it its own article if it was more than just a track listing. Mallanox 21:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete no claim or proof of notability. Edison 00:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the rapper's article? He meets notability, and albums of notable artists are notable for our standards. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A Wikipedia article is not a good reference. I do not agree with the bootstrap process, that he has an article, so all his albums are notable enough for articles, and then the albums have articles, so all the songs on them are notable enough for articles. The article for the artist also lacks references to show notability, other than links to numerous articles about his albums which are just lists of songs, and links to a couple of blogs. That article and his other album articles should be looked at for Afd as well in the future. Edison 20:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone's actually saying that the songs are notable. Just that the artist and - therefore - the album is notable. There'd have to be better sources on the artist (certainly the liner notes of one of his albums which I have feature quotes from a series of performers explaining how influential he was, so it'd be a matter of tracking those down in a physical presence), and if it comes to it I'm willing to brave underground hip-hop fandom and hunt them out. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge or Cleanup - i'm satisfied that it is notable - but its a very poor addition to the world's body of knowledge on this subject --Xorkl000 04:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Detroit ;-) Ohconfucius 07:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOT a list of things or directory. It needs more than a track listing to stay as an article. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 03:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, redirect and briefly mention in the Esham article. While the (somewhat controversial) consensus on WP:Music is that albums generally get their own article, this stretches that point.  This article is just a track listing of a compilation album.  Unless there is some evidence that the compilation itself is somehow independently significant, I suggest that WP would not be diminished if the Esham article merely mentioned that he released a compilation/greatest hits album in 1996. Not every repackaging of previous material needs an article. -Kubigula (ave) 04:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete No content, just a list of tracks, we are not gracenote. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:NOT. If this rapper has other more notable albums, fine. But this is not worthy much more than a very brief mention in the main article. -- Elar  a  girl  Talk 21:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information: rapcruft neither needed nor wanted. Moreschi 09:30, 23 November 2006 (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.