Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pink Floyd bootleg recordings


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Pink Floyd bootleg recordings

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This article is full of unreferenced content, or asserted by unreliable sources, such as : "According to the users of Rate Your Music, the bootleg [Animals Instincts] can be considered as one of the best bootlegs of all time." (where "best" is 18th, and assessed according to 3 users). How can we prove that half of these bootlegs were actually released, and that they're the definitive names of them? A few names like "Yeeshkul" have entered vaguely common parlance amongst fans, but most haven't. I think while the performances might be notable, the actual bootlegs aren't.

I've struggled to think of what to do with this and I think the best thing is to TNT it and start over - move the live performances into the existing touring articles (such as Dark Side of the Moon Tour), put the radio sessions in another article (the existence of which can be sourced from places like the BBC Peel Sessions archives), and put anything left behind (which shouldn't be much) in the main Pink Floyd article if it's not already there. Any references to specific bootlegs should only appear if it's reliably sourced.

Discuss! Ritchie333  (talk)  19:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe some sentences can be deleted in the article, but I don't see a reason why the whole article should be deleted. I will review the article and add some reliable sources. A separate article relating to the Pink Floyd bootlegs isn't unlogical since Pink Floyd was one of the most bootlegged artists of the seventies. If we can bring the article to an higher level by adding reliable sources, than this should be sufficient (for comparable articles see: Led Zeppelin bootleg recordings and Tangerine Dream bootleg recordings.Floydian Tree (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Floydian Tree's logic. I have edited the article a bit, mostly for redirects, but I'll try and source a lot of the info. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 20:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The article includes too many detailed lists, making it too long, but as a nonFloydian I still find it interesting. If we delete it based on references missing, not many articles would exist. Improve it! 99.251.125.65 (talk) 13:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Update Thanks to yeepsi for finding references. Just to be clear, my intention was only to delete the article and move the relevant content elsewhere. Anything that was reliably sourced would not be lost. However, to give you an idea of what problems we have - the names of the bootlegs don't match what I've seen eg: 17/9/69 is called "Complete Concertgebouw" whereas my copy was called "Timescape", 13/03/1972 I have as "Think Pink", 22/09/1972 is known to me as "Crackers", 09/05/1977 as "Plays the Animals". And there's no mention of Reserved. And that's just two minutes of looking at it! How might we resolve that lot? -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   13:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Some Pink Floyd bootlegs exist in several variations..." "...sometimes listeners have recorded different versions of the same performance at the same time." I think the earilest known incarnation is what is included in the list. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 13:32, 17 August 2012 (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.