Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Never Breathe What You Can't See

Never Breathe What You Can't See
Executive summary: Delete because it merely promotes a product. Prolix alternative: This wannabe-article is a bit difficult to follow, but appears to be advertising for a just-released CD. It could be argued that CDs can and often do get their own articles, and that this article (?) can be rewritten so that it is no longer an advert. Yeah, true. But such a policy is tantamount to inviting spamvertising: "You post your blatant (if sometimes incoherent) advertising puffs; we will spend our time, free of charge, helping you publicize your wares." The hell with it -- if (i) people can't be bothered to take a decent shot at presenting information neutrally and directly, and (ii) it's obvious that the "information" is actually self-serving (or a leg up for a mate), then let's zap it at birth. (Incidentally, I've already had my fill of altruistic rewriting today, salvaging preteen writing about some non-notable made-for-TV movie by the non-notable "Olsen twins".) Hoary 06:32, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It's a blatant copy/paste of this usenet post. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 07:01, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)]
 * Wouldn't that make it a copyvio? If not, keep. We have plenty of album articles, and we don't delete things just because they're biased. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:16, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * It does, and I marked it as such when I noted that here. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 21:00, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete, do we have a policy against crud? --fvw* 12:10, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP (after rewrite). The album has it's own AMG entry. The artists, The Melvins and Jello Biafra are both notable, have Wikipedia and AMG entries. Why on earth would this be deleted? Wyllium 13:25, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)
 * Because it's a copyvio, as previously stated. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 16:42, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Copyvios should be rewritten, not deleted. Wyllium 23:46, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)
 * Copyvios should be deleted to get the copyright violation out of the edit history, and then rewritten. RickK 23:29, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Why should it be deleted, you ask? Well, um . . . have you read it? NB I haven't said that there should be no article on this subject, I said (or wanted to say) that this isn't an article, and it's not worth salvaging. And if it's a copyvio, it shouldn't be rewritten; somebody who wants an article should start afresh. Hoary 14:51, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * of course it is a blatant paste of a usenet article. I wrote that usenet article.  If I said this record sucked would you retain the post?  Why bother? It merely promotes a product?  You see no historical references in there?  Look again. I say this record is a masterpiece.  If you disagree,   go tell that to alt.fan.jello-biafra,  after you listen to it.  By the way,  I have no association with Biafra except that I am probably his greatest fan...regards,  Doug McComb
 * We have no way of knowing that you are who you say you are. The fact that it's a glowing review instead of a neutral encyclopedia article is also a giant negative. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 23:18, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice. The alleged copyvio is nearly illegible.  If someone makes a stub on the temp page, then that should probably be kept.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 03:52, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)