Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live at Lowlands 2408
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. Keep argument is that the band is notable, which misses the point that these bootlegs are not, we're not deleted the band's article. Carlossuarez46 18:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Live at Lowlands 2408
Bootlegs (illegal recordings) are not notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry unless proven otherwise. Nominating for deletion based on previous precedents Angel's Dream, Bless the Century Child, Mysteries and Mysteries vol. 2 and Wishsides. ReyBrujo (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following article for the same reason:
- Keep I have no idea why I know this, but Dimmu Borgir is a notable black metal band, and this album appears repeatedly in discographies. Precedent cited by nom appears to mostly cover obscure/nn bootlegs, but doesn't establish that WP editors can't write about bootlegs per se. This article doesn't have much to say, but it says it competantly, and doesn't seem to be part of a sprawl of trivial articles on the broader subject. --- tqbf 18:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Dimmu Borgir is a notable band, yes. But the bootleg is not. A quick Google search delivers 255 hits for "Live at Lowlands 2408" and 668 for "Spiritual Darkness Alive in Europe", most of which are either torrents or Wikipedia mirrors, while quick Google searches for official albums like "Enthrone Darkness Triumphant" and "Puritanical Euphoric Misanthropia" give 75,200. Since it is a bootleg, notability of the album cannot be established. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- 86 ghits if you exclude "torrent", "wikipedia", and "encyclopedia", mostly passing refs in discography. But I'll argue a place for this article in WP:SUMMARY style --- that is, if I was interested in studying Dimmu Borgir (I'm not), I'd be happy to know that a well-known bootleg was in WP, and that it wasn't cluttering up the main page. I don't have strong feelings, but I dispute the idea that bootlegs have no place on WP. --- tqbf 22:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Per WP:MUSIC#Albums, bootlegs are generally considered not notable, and there is nothing here demonstrating notability. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- I read that as not intrinsically notable, but I'm not trying to argue, I'm asking for my own benefit. Thanks. --- tqbf 00:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Per WP:MUSIC#Albums, bootlegs are generally considered not notable, and there is nothing here demonstrating notability. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- 86 ghits if you exclude "torrent", "wikipedia", and "encyclopedia", mostly passing refs in discography. But I'll argue a place for this article in WP:SUMMARY style --- that is, if I was interested in studying Dimmu Borgir (I'm not), I'd be happy to know that a well-known bootleg was in WP, and that it wasn't cluttering up the main page. I don't have strong feelings, but I dispute the idea that bootlegs have no place on WP. --- tqbf 22:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 11:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete -- if this was a particularly notable concert it can be mentioned in the main article for the band, but there's nothing to indicate this bootleg is notable enough to need its own article. CKarnstein (talk) 15:57, 29 November 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.
