Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pocketwatch (album)


 * 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. Shimeru (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Pocketwatch (album)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. Sources on this page are of questionable credibility and a Google search turns up mostly torrents and social media sites. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The spiel about demos is irrelevant as this isn't a demo - it's a commercial release on the Simple Machines label. Try Google Books - there are plenty of books covering it, and Grohl is sufficiently notable that an official release is also going to be notable.--Michig (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. couldn't have said it better than Michig did. this is a significantly notable release, NOT a "demo". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.231.173 (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a demo album, consequently, it is in Category:Demo albums. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This is NOT a "demo album" - where are you getting your information?? As previously stated, the ALBUM was released by a legitimate label, Simple Machines. (the label is now defunct, but still has a website up at www.simplemachines.net) Grohl may have referred to Pocketwatch as a "demo" in the past, like he has also done with the self-titled Foo Fighters album. I guess under your standards, that page should be nominated for deletion as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.231.173 (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Clearly, you do not understand me. See demo album and WP:MUSIC. I do not create the standards for notability and demo albums can be released by legitimate labels; where are you getting this? If the first Foo Fighters album was a demo, then it should be in Category:Demo albums as well, but I would not nominate it for deletion, because I have read and understood WP:MUSIC; I suggest you do the same. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I do understand you, I'm just baffled. Hopefully someone with stronger WIKI skills than I can stick up for the notability of this important album.
 * Comment It's simple: find credible and verifiable third-party sources that assert the notability of this album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Regardless of if it's a demo album or not, how is an album by Dave Grohl not notable, especially after songs from Pocketwatch later appeared on releases by both Nirvana and Foo Fighters? This was the debut of Grohl playing an instrument besides the drums on a released recording, and other than the Scream song "Gods Look Down," this album would also be Grohl's vocal debut. A really interesting, little-talked-about part of a very famous musicians career. The article could be expanded/improved, but definitely should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.161.121.124 (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - the problem here is that the nominator is stuck on the term "demo" to describe this release. Even if something started life as a stereotypical "demo" it can graduate to "album" if it is released by a legitimate record label (rather than self-released by the artist) and attains notability, as is certainly the case here. Concerning reliable sources, Michig above is correct about the Google Book search, which reveals coverage by sources such as Rolling Stone and various well-known music journalists. Just because a regular Google search doesn't easily locate online sources is no reason to assume something has received no coverage. "Pocketwatch" was a demo that became an album and is of great historic interest in the careers of three different noteworthy acts (Dave Grohl, Foo Fighters, Nirvana), and the article really needs expansion rather than deletion. Also, the nominator's statement that the album is in the "Demo Albums" category because it is a demo (or vice-versa) is tautological at best and myopic at worst. D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 16:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I did not say that it was a demo album because it is in Category:Demo albums, I said that it was in that category because it is a demo album. Demo albums can be released by record labels, but they remain demos (Hints, Allegations, and Things Left Unsaid, Magnapop, Nebraska.) Why the false dichotomy between demo albums and label-released albums? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment about above comment - 1) There is certainly a dichotomy but whether it's "false" is a matter of opinion. 2) I have not inspected the article history so closely, but whoever put the article in the category was a volunteer editor just like the rest of us. Or a bot did it automatically because the word "demo" is in the article text. Either way, categorization is not proof of anything. 3) Regardless of how closely we adhere to the guideline about demos and notability, that same guideline does not have a precise definition of the term "demo" itself. People here (including me) are arguing that "Pocketwatch" transcends a narrow definition of "demo" and should be judged accordingly. D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 17:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. 98.210.231.173 (talk) 02:55, 3 April 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.