Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawkwind 1997

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--Wizardman 23:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hawkwind 1997

Hawkwind 1997 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Disputed prod. Very limited edition album released only to fan club members and therefore not within the scope of a general encylopedia (I would contend). kingboyk 13:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 19:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep.....album released by a notable artist = notable album Jcuk 23:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Define released. This one was "released" in the sense that it exists, but it was not sold at stores or available for purchase at all except as a sort of concert souvenir or fan club gift. Is that really considered a release? GassyGuy 02:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep - I accept that this release had a limited print run and didn't receive general distribution, but I don't feel that this criteria should be a bar for this article's existence, there are many other articles that also don't meet this criteria (eg The Beatles' Christmas Album). Ultimately, this was an album produced by the band for public consumption and I feel that the overall Hawkwind article would lack completeness if it were omitted. In addition, if this article is to be deleted, then by extension the Spaced Out In London article must also be removed. Drwhawkfan 11:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep Demo's have articles, and they ain't even publicly released. LuciferMorgan 00:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: sounds like "other crap exists" to me! Actually, demos are more often than not deleted because of their nature, so little is written about them. The article fails to establish why the "album" merits an article. If completeness is an objective, this could be included in the discography of the band's article. Ohconfucius 07:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 10:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep per Drwhawkfan. May only have had a limited print run, but it is still notable. ĤĶ51→^Łalk 15:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I am leaning towards a delete unless references to articles are supplied to indicate how/why it may be notabile/important, in accordance with WP:N. It utterly fails that at this point in time. Ohconfucius 03:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: This nomination criteria would also apply to (for example) Seeing Stars but availabilty and notablity of a record are not one in the same. A1octopus 14:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: A fan will think ever single track or release is important, and nothing will ever change that. However, at least the reason why someone thinks Seeing Stars is important has been stated in the article, and whether one agrees or not whether this translates into notability is another matter, but this is usually demonstrated by quoting reliable sources. For the article under discussion, all this is demonstrably lacking, and therefore merits deletion, IMHO. Ohconfucius 02:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Surely this is merely a question of whether an album by a notable artist can be deemed notable if it had a limited print run and/or didn't receive general distribution. Both albums are listed on the band's official disography, does that make any difference? Drwhawkfan 13:13, 2 March 2007 (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.