Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/12 Days of Brumalia

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 no consensus. Krimpet (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 12 Days of Brumalia

12 Days of Brumalia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Not a notable internet event. 96 ghits. Contested prod. MER-C 04:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• delete per doesnt assert any importance. the_undertow ^talk 08:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - Almost all of The Residents' 62 other albums have their own articles, and I assume the recent albums that are still redlinks will get their own pages soon. Why on earth single this one out for deletion? This is The Residents for heaven's sake, not a couple of teenagers recording in their dad's basement. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep- I created this page solely for the fact that it was an internet event that RESULTED in an album, and I figured I would post both the event and album on the same page.

Alicecooper150 20:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Alicecooper150

• Strong delete per nom. Not even sourced. GreenJoe 05:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment - What kind of source do you need? WP:MUSIC clearly states that if the creator's notable (and I again reiterate, this is The Residents for god's sake), their albums automatically pass WP:N - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or merge into a list of minor Residents albums. The Residents are very notable IMHO, but we do have a few articles on their works that aren't particularly expandable, such as the Buckaroo Blues & Black Barry rehearsal cassette. If it can't be merged though, there's not much reason not to keep it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• My delete is stronger than your delete! Just fooling, but neither the album nor the event on which it's based is notable. It's typical internet blarney, and nothing more. YechielMan 05:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Just barely fails WP:NOTE and I would probablly be a waek keep if it was sourced.--St.daniel ^talk 11:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Iridescenti is right. This derives notability from its creators. Delete it and logically you would have to AfD The Residents, which would be patently ridiculous. BTLizard 12:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I disagree with BTLizard. The Residents are definitely notable. However, that does not make every project that they are involved with instantly notable. This article does not cite any sources. How are we to know that the Internet releases actually happened if there are no reliable sources to confirm it? WP:MUSIC states that Albums produced by a band which meets this criterion (notability)are likely, though not certain, to meet this requirement. That means that not every album will be notable just beacuse the creators are considered notable. This article has to assert notability on its own. Unless some reliable sources can be produced to verify this, then I belive it should be deleted. --Cyrus Andiron 12:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Easy enough to prove that the album exists (although most of the hits are reviews saying how bad it is). I think the nominator and some of the people above are under the misconception that this is some kind of event rather than an album; while the album was released first as a free internet download to subscribers to their mailing list (hence the "internet event" bit), it was also released as a CD (catalogue number RA17). I don't see the lack of sources as a problem since it's easily provable that it exists (Yellow Submarine technically fails WP:MUSIC by relying on a single source, and London Calling has no references at all). This probably isn't the place to discuss it, but would it make sense to merge the album articles into sections of 1970s Residents albums, 1980s Residents albums etc with the titles as redirects to the sections? That way none of the content would be lost but we'd avoid the 50+ individual pages - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment I was disputing the releases on the Internet as being unsourced. I knew the album existed. My concern is that the article focuses more on the Internet events than it does the fact that it is an actual album. That is why I was concerned that it was not sourced. I would definitely support a merge as a way of salvaging some content. --Cyrus Andiron 18:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, no merge. This is an official release from a notable band, and therefore notable. A merge is a bad idea- everywhere else on Wikipedia, albums have their own articles, and even relatively non notable albums can become decent articles. J Milburn 19:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm trying to add sources to this one and it's proving a real pain. I've no doubt the album exists, but because it was sold mail-order & download only, none of the press - even the specialist publications - have covered it. I don't see any point in having sources back to the bands website or the record label - unless it's purely to prove that it exists - does anyone have any suggestions? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• I've added a review - but you're right, it's a real pain to source, even though it obviously exists EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

del. nonnotable Mukadderat 21:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment- I just think that we should have a complete discography for such a great band. I also created the "I Murdered Mommy" album page(and a few others), and none of them had any problems. I just don't see why all those albums can have their own pages, and this one is having such trouble...I don't get why we can't just leave it, to be expnaded on. AliceCooper150.

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.