Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outpunk Dance Party


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Outpunk Dance Party

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable compilation, not much on Google. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - I am unable to find significant coverage for this album; in addition, the article contains little more than a track listing. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I am no big fan of pages dedicated to individual albums. It does seem to be standard practice on WP for such things to stay rather than go, however. Outpunk is a historically significant underground label, in my estimation; please see the link for queercore before pulling the trigger on this particular page. I think Wikipedia's notability rules are extremely problematic for underground music — a line certainly must be drawn, but where to draw it? It's a matter of "feel" rather than mechanical adherence to arbitrary rules... Outpunk absolutely falls on the "significant" side of whatever line is drawn for 1990s American underground punk in terms of historical and sociological importance. Walk lightly here, there are plenty of other crap music pages to slam instead. Carrite (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The rules are reasonably clear; they require significant coverage in reliable independent sources. You may (successfully) argue that in some cases an album is notable despite not reaching that standard, but then you fall foul of the requirement that everything in Wikipedia must be verifiable.  If you don't have reliable sources discussing the subject, how can you possibly write a verifiable article about it?  Also I can guarantee you that the nominator of this article will, on his past form, eventually get around to slamming all the other "crap music articles" too (although we're not saying this particular one is "crap", just not notable).  If you would like to save the article, the very best thing you can do is to find some coverage of it in reliable sources, as defined at our policy on reliable sources, and link them in this discussion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Seconded Carrite, I came here to basically write what DustFormsWords wrote, but I would like to add that everything in Wikipedia is a simple matter of getting verifiable, credible sources. Anything can be significant in terms of something else--your girlfriend breaking up with you is very important to you--but is an album that is important in terms of 1990s American underground punk also important in terms of a general-interest encyclopedia? Probably not. Either way, if you have sources that can verify the existence of this topic--which is not in doubt--and then furthermore assert its notability, then it's a simple keep. I could not do as much, so I nominated it for deletion. Furthermore, if you really want to take a look at my contributions, you will note that I have nominated literally hundreds of album articles for deletion and the vast majority of them were deleted. Which is to say that a.) I would like to get around to deleting all of the extraneous album articles on Wikipedia and b.) that I have a fairly reliable sense about what constitutes reliable and unreliable album articles. In this case, I feel confident in my nomination and what you wrote above has hardly dissuaded me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete No sources? No article. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:13, 4 June 2010 (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.