Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rockets (1977 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 delete. Consensus is that an article about the broader topic of tax scam labels, or possibly individual such labels, would be much more likely to be deemed notable than this article about one tax scam album.  Sandstein  14:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Rockets (1977 album)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability given or found apart from a single source, which stated that it is not generally considered part of Rockets discography and the band members did not discuss the album in interviews. Fails both WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 13:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: none of the band's official albums charted or have a Wikipedia article – an unofficial album with no reliable sourcing certainly doesn't pass WP:NALBUM. Richard3120 (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is an interesting case. The album was not approved by the band and was released as a tax scam, and over the years it has been considered a "bootleg" for obsessive collectors. The article's creator also created an article for the scamming label, Guinness Records (record label), which is more viable. As a noteworthy (i.e. one or two media mentions) item in that label's scamming history, the album can be mentioned there but it does not have enough independent notability to qualify for its own article. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 23:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: When I created the article my plan was to cover specific albums published by tax scam labels which typified the types of practices used by tax scam labels. In the end I chose to focus only on albums where a comparatively well known performer was involved, which is why I also covered Hotgun which victimised R. Stevie Moore and then ended it where it did. Tax scam record labels are an obscure, but integral part of the US record industry. For example several of the albums published by Tiger Lily Records originated as albums previously published by companies associated with Artie Ripp and in writing these articles I thought it a good way to bring these practices to the notice of a wider audience.Graham1973 (talk) 07:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * However much we may like to, individual editors cannot decide by themselves what is notable without reference to established criteria for notability, such as significant independent reliable coverage per WP:GNG. If the album is indeed notable as an example of a tax scam scheme, then there would be significant coverage, of which there isn't, therefore the album is not notable. Hzh (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I like your plans for that sleazy side of the record industry, but I think you will have much better luck focusing on articles for the labels, which in turn can discuss particular album releases as historical events. Articles like the one being discussed here, based on a specific scam album, are unlikely to survive in Wikipedia because such albums largely disappeared without a trace. And on behalf of the musicians, that seems like good news to me. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 20:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with Doomsdayer520 – an article about the practice of tax scam labels is probably more viable, as there is likely to be more independent discussion about it to use as references than for any of the individual albums released as a result. The albums can probably be mentioned as examples within the wider article. Richard3120 (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2018 (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.