Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holiday for Pans

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. Coredesat 03:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Holiday for Pans

Holiday for Pans (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums_and_songs: Unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 23:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Two mentions on Google Books. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 10:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - That's not substantial coverage in reliable sources at all. The first one simply lists the name, with no other information. The second one gives only the name and the year. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep - Though originally a bootleg, this appears to have been released through legitimate channels in 1993 or 1998, and reissued in 2003, so the argument for deletion is invalid. Amazon has it for sale; Forum thread with two articles about the release reprinted; AMG entry. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 20:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - One problem: that release doesn't have Pastorius playing on it, according to the Pastorius estate.[1] (see also many of the customer reviews on Amazon[2]). That leaves the Pastorius album unreleased. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• No. The website claims that Pastorius doesn't play bass on the album, not that he was in no way involved with it. The labeling of the album as "bootleg" by jacopastorius.com seems more to be one of disagreement and objection over exploitation of his name, not of legal force. The release seems to have been a legal one, at least in Japan, unless you have reference to a lawsuit that has been settled differently. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 23:16, 26 February 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.