Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hammersmith Palais 19:5:85

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. The idea that tracks will "probably" be added later doesn't satisfy anything. --Coredesat 05:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hammersmith Palais 19:5:85

Hammersmith Palais 19:5:85 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Not notable, no references TotesBoats 05:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete There are no songs for the A side, none for the B side, and there are no C sides to a cassette. Nothing notable. i said 06:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Possible Merge I'm not convinced this album even exists. Assuming it does, it appears to be a non-notable album from a notable band. Therefore, I'd say merge per WP:MUSIC. Faithlessthewonderboy 08:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - tracks will probably be added by a user later when they discover they are missing and they own the tape - this is how the wiki was supposed to work, enough with the rampant deletionism. Fosnez 14:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - no reliable sources to show existence, much less notsability. This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Furthermore, the title seems to be wrong; this page (which the article seems to be based on) gives it as just "Hammersmith Palais". -- Huon 21:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I own the tape so can add the tracks if kept - but this is a semi-official ROIO tape that they sold on the T-shirt stall at gigs in the late 80s, and not any kind of bona fide release. As per similar AfDs, most notably on Pink Floyd, we only keep entries on such things if there's an outstandingly significant reason to keep them, and I can't see one here — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:33, 25 August 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.