Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Man Who Stepped into Yesterday


 * 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; the book is clearly a reliable source. Non-admin close. Jfire (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The Man Who Stepped into Yesterday

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

Fails Music: Unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Phish are a well-known band so it is very likely that there are sources available for this article. Catchpole (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment "Very likely that there are sources" is very different from "Substantial coverage in reliable sources" cited''. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Just because Phish is notable doesn't mean that all their albums are. This one was not released; therefore, there probably aren't going to be any sources about it. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep While this was never released, it has seen a circulation on par with their label-released albums, albeit as band-sanctioned bootlegs. The album figures prominently in the development of the band, and, were this article deleted, would be a glaring omission in their discography.  It has been covered in reliable sources, though I think "substantial" is a little subjective.  The coverage won't be as substantial as with other unreleased albums, simply because Phish never enjoyed that type of exposure.  However, the album is quite notable and the article should be kept.  &mdash;   Music  Maker  5376  22:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per MusicMaker5376. Also, here are two references, one of them from Rolling Stone.  This should be sufficient to establish notability I think.
 * Aronson,Anne, "Phish Set Off Fireworks in Camden", Rolling Stone, July 6, 2000
 * "Tom Marshall Amfibian 6-16-07 Philadelphia", Go Kids NJ, June 18, 2007  — Mudwater  00:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think those sources are up to the standard of "substantial". No matter, I added the one I found to the article. Blast Ulna (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for updating the article. Re substantial or not, I really think that a clear reference in Rolling Stone to the subject of an article related to rock music does count as substantial.  — Mudwater  00:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I've added the Rolling Stone reference to the article. — Mudwater  00:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, received detailed analysis in a book, Go Phish. Blast Ulna (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - clearly notable. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  21:07, 25 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.