Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garage Beat 66 series


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Garage Beat 66 series

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not eligible for speedy (was declined by another). But no indication of notability and barely any context. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not entirely sure of the format of these debates, but I strongly support deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobmacmillan (talk • contribs) 10:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete: Generally I've been bashing the nom's recent spate of ill-considered and policy-violating AfD nominations. This, however, is spot on.  Hullaballoo Wolfowitz screwed up in declining the speedy on grounds of "creative works not eligible," because musical recordings specifically are eligible under WP:A9.  This should be speedied on an A9 for failure to assert any grounds for notability.   Ravenswing   04:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. No, Ravenswing is dead wrong about the speedy deletion issues here. The article was nominated as an A7, and creative works are not eligible under A7. These are compilation albums, and A9 is a bad fit for compilation albums when several of the artists represented are notable (e.g., The Country Gentlemen, John Hammond Jr., the Guess Who, The Remains, The Music Machine) -- and A9 is also intended to apply to individual releases (albums, EPs, singles), while this is a multivolume series. The album was issued by Sundazed, which is a notable label, mostly for its archival releases, and this is an archival project. According to CMJ. releases in the series have hit its top 200 charts  There's a fair amount of coverage out there for this series; I don't know if it's collectively sufficient to meet RS or not, but that's why we ought to have a discussion rather than summary deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply: Huh? Since when do we disallow a nomination because the nom gets the rule number wrong, when there's a patently obvious rule number which applies?  That being said, what's your evidence as to the "intent" of A9?  And that being said, the purported notability of an artist doesn't matter (Notability not being inherited), nor does the label of the issuer, nor whether the subject is the result of an archival project or not, nor whether you can find a company or a publication that claims the releases are on its "Top 200 Chart."   Ravenswing   06:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 03:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:39, 30 September 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.