Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panic prevention disco

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Merge and redirect to Jamie T. I've merged the lead and would recommend against merging the tracklists also. Sandstein 09:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Panic prevention disco

Panic prevention disco (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

An article about a mixtape that a musician used to give out at gigs. While the musician is (barely) notable enough to warrant an article, these tapes are not. Speedy deletion tags repeatedly removed by the author of the article. No mention of these tapes could be found in any reliable sources (The only sources given are "community" sites) yandman 15:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect One review, a mention of the tapes being given out, I don't think these references demonstrate this tape is notable. Some of the content is salvagable if moved to the Jamie T article. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Jamie T on the very slight chance that someone might search for it. Otto4711 15:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Ok, few things you have got wrong: "Barely notable?", If you haven't heard of a fairly popular UK charting artist have the decency to admit it rather than making out he is extremely obscure. The tapes are still handed out at gigs and are fairly important to those researching this upcoming musician. Yes its a cult thing, but it seems if we left things up to you, we would only have articles on U2 and some other bland mainstream rubbish. Another thing, is it really worth all this hassle? i see nothing wrong with it being seperate. it definately doesn't merit this kind of arrogant fuss that comes from wiki-superiors and general meddlers. Your ignorance is notable--Joeshawuk 19:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC) — Joeshawuk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Lay off the personal attacks, please. What position exactly did these mix tapes reach in the charts? This isn't about the notability of the musician, whoever he is. It's about the notability of the tapes. They're mentioned in the Jamie article, and you can expand that section of the article (and if you feel like it, write a whole chapter on them). However, they don't deserve their own article. yandman 21:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, while I see you are arguing that it should be kept, what do you think about the option of the verifiable and on topic portions of this article being merged into Jamie T? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect for the reasons already given, and the fact that they are mix tapes - there is nothing particularly notable about unpublished third-party compilations. :: Princess Tiswas 10:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep I was just searching for it when i noticed you were going to delete it. This information is valuable for anyone who needs information on UK pop culture. 11:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a vote, so there's no point spamming, Joe. yandman 11:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there can be 50 votes, but if they do not take policy into account they are meaningless. Can you address the concerns we have brought up instead? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see where i have been spamming, please explain this. I did not post the above keep message, you can check the IPs if you like. I am not insulting you by calling you ignorant, it is a fact, you have no idea who this artist is and his importance so your opinion is completely irrelevant, yandman.--Joeshawuk 15:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Joe, I was trying to tell the anon contributor that he needed to argue in line with our policy in order to be effective here, I did not mean to imply any wrongdoing by you or the anon. However the comment above mine could be construed in such a manner.
The burden of proof for demonstrating notability lies on the parties wishing to keep the content. The parties wishing to remove the content simple need to demonstrate that no evidence has been given. After all, it is very hard to prove something is not famous.
What do you think about the idea of merging this content into Jamie T Joe? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
to be honest i think once i've finished the article it would be too big to put into the jamie t article and not overshadow it. I see absolutely no problem with keeping it seperate.--Joeshawuk 16:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, well if you directed us to the sources you plan to use in this article it might help. What sort of previously published material are going to use? If any of this shows these tapes to be notable then things may change here. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I have actually cited some sources on the page, along with those i am using

I would like to add that the mixtapes are very relevant because it is a large part of the artists success and why there was so much hype from magazines like NME. It has itself resulted in a boom in mixtapes amongst the independent music scene in the UK, from just normal kids, to other bands etc. Since this artist has an album out in january and is predicted by prominent mainstream faces of the UK music scene like NME and Zane Lowe of being a massive success i think it is important to anyone researching him. He is also signed to Virgin records, just to give you an idea of the scale.--Joeshawuk 19:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


From the links that you have provided:
  • 1) drownedinsound - interview with artist's manangement team with a splash of hyperbole
  • 2) factmagazine - tells us that he makes mix tapes. This was not disputed
  • 3) canvasmag - informs us that there are mixtapes. Again - This is not disputed.
  • 4) jamie-t - the artists own site. This counts as self referential citation.
These links don't appear to do anything that supports your case. If you can cite evidence to support your claims (re: NME hype, the mixtape boom) then there might be something worthwhile. In the meantime, wikipedia is not a primary source of information - for anybody researching the artist, or his work, it is a starting point that collates sourcesm but doesn't make any conclusions itself. Princess Tiswas 12:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
no offence, but cheer up you miserable bastards! i no longer care what you do as you are never going to be particularly pleased. go and savage my article like a pack of vulturesit seems you are all out to decimate any articles made on here, surely wikipedia thrives on expansion. i will not contribute again, this is completely PATHETIC.--Joeshawuk 15:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. When the Great Final List of Non-Notability is prepared, this will definitely be included. WMMartin 18:07, 28 November 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Panic_prevention_disco_1d9a.html"