Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motörhead extended discography


 * 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   Keep Cheers.  I 'mperator 21:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Motörhead extended discography

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

This is unnecessary - all relevant material can be combined into the main article and track listings are on the articles about individual albums. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete hastily, redundant to existing articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Inclusion of the archive releases in the main discography would be a size issue. Track listings cannot be included on the majority of the individual albums as many of the discs listed there don't have articles. Do we have a policy or guideline on this as we generally don't have individual articles on archive releases not approved by bands? - I'm not aware of any.--Alf melmac 06:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * futher comment Could be expanded to include the more notorious bootlegs as well.--Alf melmac 09:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'll re-post the reasons originally stated on Talk:Motörhead discography for the article's creation from here: "The reason for having separated the two [discography and extended discography] in the first place is that the main discog page is dedicated to, for want of a better word, 'proper' releases, ie those intended for release by the group - the releases detailed on the extended discog page, although perfectly legitimate, have purposefully been over-looked by the contributing editors of the main discog page because they were not instigated or approved of by the group. The format of the extended discog page intentionally differs from the main discog page because each listed item on the latter has its own page, whereas on the former the details are all self-contained. Remember, the ext discog page is only a first cut and we can debate the relative merits of its format, and it may well be better to merge it into a list on the main discog page and create separate pages for each of the listed entries here." – Drwhawkfan (talk) 12:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep – for the reasons stipulated by Drwhawkfan above. Motorhead's discography is a long and tangled affair after 33 years and this article covers the most notable of the non-official releases. And there are plenty more out there. – B.hotep •talk• 12:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I must also take issue with the above comment stating that it must be deleted "hastily" – why must it be done hastily when there is a discussion to be had? – B.hotep •talk• 12:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into discography article. Why not accommodate the two together. I don't see why this would necessitate a fork. Shadowjams (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and consider renaming to "Semi-official releases" on something like that. Since there are so many Motorhead albums, both official and unofficial, it seems reasonable to separate them this way. Yilloslime T C  05:29, 15 June 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.