Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hastily Cobbled Together for a Fast Buck 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. John254 18:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The Hastily Cobbled Together for a Fast Buck Album

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Per WP:MUSIC, unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - extremely notable performers, but badly needs better sourcing. -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  13:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep well-known "lost" Monty Python album. A source is included already in the article, but I agree more need to be added. -- MisterHand  (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 14:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, Monty Python is very well known. This is moot. Whether this unreleased album is well-known is also moot.: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage. Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs and promo-only records are in general not notable; unreleased albums may not yet be notable without substantial coverage from reliable sources." MUSIC The article actually lists no sources. Two external links are given: one to download it (certainly not a reliable source) and a brief article in a local paper saying it will be released in October...of 2005. That is not, IMO, substantial coverage in reliable sources. If there is such coverage, please feel free to add it to the article. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a quite unusual case of an "unreleased" album that is readily available on the net; I guess one might say 'unofficially released'. It's not what one would call a 'bootleg' album, and I doubt that this happens very often. Given the notability of the group in question, I think that would override other concerns - except that it does need a bit 'beefing up' on the references.  SkierRMH  ( talk ) 04:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep Passes WP:V, WP:N -- policies. As opposed to WP:MUS which would be a guideline. &mdash;  Music  Maker  5376  21:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - N "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines. Note WP:Verifiability: 'If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.' " So where are these reliable, third-party sources?
 * V "Any edit lacking a reliable source may be removed". Let's take a look at all of the sourced info in that article:  . What's left if we remove all of the edits lacking reliable sources? A blank spot where the article used to be. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is already sourced, and was before the AfD. The album exists and is covered by a second party.  Since secondary coverage is established, primary sources can be used for some details.  I really don't understand why this was nominated instead of being tagged for cleanup.  &mdash;To rc.  ( Ta lk.  ) 22:17, 22 February 2008 (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.