Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live At Vicar Street

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. The article's poorly done right now but the consensus is obvious. Wizardman 23:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Live At Vicar Street

Live At Vicar Street (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is a non-notable recording from a non-notable band. It could not be speedied because of the strict wording of CSD A7. It is however non-notable by the usual standards JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 14:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep, the Dubliners are definitely a notable band, so it is easily a notable album.[1] Fram 14:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I am not certain that albums of notable bands are automatically entitled to their own article. The guidance at WP:MUSIC seems to suggest that they can be or they can be merged into the bands article. Perhaps that would be better?

--JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 14:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

How on earth could you say The Dubliners are a non notable band? Such a statement doesn't speak well of your research into this article. You now seem to agree the band is notable, will you also change your mind about the album? Nick mallory 15:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should stick to the discussion and not the nominator. I do not believe the album is notable.--JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 16:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sticking to the discussion, unlike your comment which doesn't answer my point at all. The nominator, that's you JodyB, said 'The Dubliners' themselves were not notable, which you were clearly wrong about as they're a famous Irish folk outfit who've been performing and making records since 1962. Wikipedia rules say a band has to have released two albums, the Dubliners have released more than 40. This shows that you'd done no research into this article, as you're supposed to do under the AfD rules - an article you were keen to speedy let's remember. There seems no reason to assume you're right about the CD not being notable if you're so wrong about the band, haven't even bothered to look them up and seem to know nothing about the subject. I rewrote the article somewhat so if it was a copy vio, it is no longer. Nick mallory 17:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Notable album by notable band. Golfcam 14:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Warning: Although the band and album seem notable, this reads like a copyvio. —gorgan_almighty 14:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Ultra strong keep How could anyone have thought this deserves deletion? A relatively major (the first album for three years) album by probably the most successful band in their genre — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. "Keep" per Iridescent and "weak" per Gorgan almighty. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  04:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Just to clarify - the article as nominated read like a copyvio, as it seemed to start in mid-paragraph. The current version seems less so. Of course an edited copyvio is still a copyvio, but I haven't actually been able to find the text as nominated appearing anywhere else on the web. —gorgan_almighty 12:15, 29 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.