Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flyswatter (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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 10:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Flyswatter (album)

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

There is almost no coverage of the demo by reliable sources. Also, it doesn't comply with the music notability guideline. Tim meh  !  19:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 
 * Keep for sure, widely known and accepted as Blink-182's first album, even though it was in fact a demo. Furthermore, there are references on the page (while the problems in the past were mainly caused by a lack of sources), so I can't really take this nomination serious. See also this discussion.--GraafGeorge (talk) 00:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources listed on the page don't do anything but list the album and its tracklist. The Google book source (which shouldn't be cited, the actual book should) only shows a biography of the band. There is not more than one or two reliable third-party sources that go into any detail about the demo. Tim  meh  !  00:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a demo. What do you expect? The fact that it has references at all shows that it's notable. We only have to wait for someone who has the book to make those references better.--GraafGeorge (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and according to WP:MUSIC, demos are generally not notable, unless there is "significant independent coverage in reliable sources". There is barely any coverage of this demo at all, except that in the book written by one of the members' sisters. Tim  meh  !  20:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't relegate this book to be 'just written by one of the member's sisters'. Anne Hoppus is actually the one who brought Tom and Mark together, and so she was the one who got to write the official book on the band's (early) history. As I explained before, if anything is a notable demo, this is. We just need good references from the book to have "significant coverage in reliable sources". As you can see I deleted 'independent' from that sentence as we have independent coverage already - the book will just make de sources significant.--GraafGeorge (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: no significant coverage, no charts, no awards, non-notable demo. JamesBurns (talk) 04:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note – This user has been blocked for sock puppetry and vote-stacking at AfDs. List of Confirmed sock puppets of User:JamesBurns Untick (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 01:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 *  Keep Merge see below Has sufficient verifiable sources. —  Jake   Wartenberg  02:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you'd follow the links on in the article, you'll see that the sources there don't say anything about the album other than a release date and track listing. Therefore, unless other reliable sources are found, it seems to pretty clearly fail WP:NALBUMS. Tim  meh  !  03:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. If this does end up getting deleted, perhaps it could be merged into this section, instead.  As you can see there, each demo listed has its own article, and I truly do not believe that the encyclopedia would benefit from their loss.  The guideline you linked to recommends that articles of this kind me merged "space permitting".  I don't think that merging all of them into the discography, which is already huge, makes sense.   —  Jake   Wartenberg  14:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would be useful to merge it with anything either. All the sourced information in the article is already in that section of the discography. The part about the recording and artwork is unsourced, and I doubt we'd be able to find any reliable sources that go into any detail about the demo. I did some Google searching through web articles, books, and news articles, and I could not find anything about the album other than the release date and tracklist. Tim  meh  !  15:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the track listings are helpful. Why don't we try and gather consensus to merge those into the discography for all the demos that are listed there, and then add them to this AfD?  —  Jake   Wartenberg  15:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be fine with me. Tim  meh  !  16:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 02:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Please do not turn this into a merge to the discography page, it has no place there. Last time these demos were deleted, they were merged there and were sitting there, against policy, just because no one wanted to clean it up properly. Style guidelines clearly state the information on the Flyswatter page should not be included (track listing, etc.), if you want it to be included, go to the style talk page and get consensus to make an exception - otherwise I will be fighting the merge. k-i-a-c  ( hitmeup  -  the past ) 08:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, merging makes it worse. Just keep the article: if you look around about Blink-182 on the web, you'll notice that Flyswatter is quite known as Blink-182's first 'album', even if it was a demo., , and  are just a few examples of this. There are always some details about the recording of Flyswatter. It's clear that this demo is an important part in Blink-182's history - and should we really delete the article then..? Don't forget the small official book I mentioned earlier - if we just find someone who has it, this article will have enough references.--GraafGeorge (talk) 21:52, 20 April 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.