Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Science Fiction (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. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Science Fiction (album)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I can't find significant coverage for this bootleg album. Joe Chill (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 17:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Bootleg albums are not presumed notable without sufficient coverage in reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence of notability. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This isn't a bootleg album - it has been released several times on legit labels, and the article already links to an Allmusic review which provides significant coverage.--Michig (talk) 07:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make the article pass WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 09:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Then why did you nominate for deletion on that basis? Anarchangel (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I nominated it for deletion because it fails WP:MUSIC (which is what I said and I said that it still does!). Joe Chill (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Granted, I might better have said, 'on the basis of it being a bootleg'. My point was, will you withdraw the word 'bootleg' from your nomination, as the album has been released on legitimate labels? Anarchangel (talk) 08:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:MUSIC is not as prescriptive regarding albums as it is with other areas. The fact that the artist is notable and that the album has received significant coverage from a reliable source is generally sufficient for an article to be kept.--Michig (talk) 09:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not from everything that I've seen. Joe Chill (talk) 09:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * Keep. Specific, fairly detailed Allmusic coverage creates presumption of notability, and Amazon is selling it. An entry would also be particularly useful, as a warning to consumers about the dubious pedigree.  If it ends up being deleted, though, it should first be moved to something like "Science Fiction (Alice Cooper album)", because there is at least one clearly notable album sharing the title, by Ornette Coleman. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * response - "Amazon is selling it" is like "available on iTunes": not evidence of anything except that somebody somewhere is trying to sell it. It certainly doesn't even approach being evidence of notability. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  01:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Annoyed response: Amazon (US) selling it is evidence that it's not a bootleg, which was part of the original deletion rationale, and which hadn't been retracted at the time I !voted. What I cited as evidence of notability was the relatively detailed Allmusic coverage, which is the sort of independent third party coverage that constitutes evidence of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not per the music guideline. Joe Chill (talk) 02:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Extremely annoyed response. You should probably review the music notability guideline, which quite specifically mentions independent coverage in reliable sources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep A clear definition of the arguments for nomination is evasive. Perhaps another time, when Monsieur Joe has decided what the reasons for deletion actually are, rather than erroneous statements and WP:VAGUEWAVEing. It is bad enough when respondents quote rules without rationale. Anarchangel (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My reason was I can't find significant coverage. I crossed out bootleg. I accidentally made a mistake. I always say a rationale. Since when is WP:MUSIC not a reason to nominate something for deletion? What I said wasn't vague. I said that what Michig said isn't in WP:MUSIC. You twisted everything that I said around. Joe Chill (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What Michig said is in WP:MUSIC, and it reflects the GNG. If we're going be sticky about exact phrasing, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and the fact you (or any other user) "can't find significant coverage"  shouldn't be given any weight in a deletion discussion, since the standard is that the coverage exist, not that it be locatable by any particular user.  Yes, this comment is approaching the snarky boundary, but repeatedly wikilawyering users who disagree with your reading or application of guidelines much more closely approaches the uncivil. It's more like Rep. Wilson's howling "You lie!" than it's ike reasoned discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It needs multiple sources. Joe Chill (talk) 11:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable. Joe Chill (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As you have had explained to you before the criterion that you just quoted is from the section on musicians and ensembles, not the section on albums.--Michig (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything needs multiple sources. Joe Chill (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I found another review from from a different Allmusic reviewer .--Michig (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for crossing out bootleg. Anarchangel (talk) 22:15, 28 September 2009 (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.