Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clown Circus (album)

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 delete and redirect. Sources were not presented.-Wafulz (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clown Circus (album)

Clown Circus (album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable album by a band that isn't even notable enough to have its own page. (Even though the singer of said band, Neil Cicierega, does.) BranER (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep Notable singer, and I also dont see why we don't have an article on lemon demon. Ratman9999 (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Lemon Demon" is just an alias of Neil Cicierega, and is therefore a redirect. the wub "?!" 12:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    • "Lemon Demon" and "Neil Cicierega" are not synonyms, however. The former only has a section in a larger article, and the larger article itself is just barely notable due to the combined fame of Lemon Demon, Cinema Rocketry, and Potter Puppet Pals. --BranER (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Although not a particularly notable album, if this goes, then it will be harder to make articles on more notable albums such as Dinosaurchestra, which contained The Ultimate Showdown. Even if certain albums by an artist weren't very popular or notable, you should still have articles with them, at least to have a complete discography. And if you are going to bother to list them in the discography on Neil's page, shouldn't they have an article? --DrProfessorman
    • Delete You just said yourself why it should be deleted "Although not a particularly notable album", Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information so it needs Notability in order to be added. Also I fail to see how deleting this would make it "harder to make articles on more notable albums" if the album is notable enough then there should be no problem creating it. "if you are going to bother to list them in the discography on Neil's page, shouldn't they have an article?" If you can show me a policy that says just because something is mentioned on another article page that it must have it's own article then this would be a valid argument. The Light6 (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. I'm sure users will pull up a lot of online sources, but the song remains no more notable than a million others. Wikipedia cannot be cluttered with an entry for every "somewhat notable" track. -RiverHockey (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    • "Song"? This is an album... Also if people were to "pull up a lot of online sources" assuming they high profile sites or something that would show that the album would be notable, or at least have some notability amd could possibly stay. The Light6 (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Album, still no more notable than 10 million other albums, all of which can't be merited an entry. -RiverHockey (talk) 22:40, 14 January 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.