Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opium Den

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Opium Den

There is no such thing an album by this name released by a band called Tool, meaning that it is not an official release. -- Mike Garcia | talk 01:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment; Unofficial release? I would need more info as I have no clue what that entails. It seems that all other releases by that band have articles though | Celcius 01:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The album is just a rare release (like a bootleg, etc.) and I do not think rare releases should be posted at this site. -- Mike Garcia | talk 01:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Vote pending Delete. If I understand Mike Garcia correctly, then this album was put out by someone other than Tool or Tool's record label, and is essentially a glorified mixtape. Unless there is a claim to notability above and beyond that, I will vote to delete. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to delete in light of el Che's research. Fernando Rizo T/C 04:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Vote pending; I second Fernando with a Delete vote on stated premises | Celcius 02:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Tool's official website doesn't list it (damn Flash) and this site[1] refers to it as a "bootleg" (near bottom).
• It deserves a mention on the Tool (band) page, being so notable for a bootleg, but as a standalone I vote delete. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 03:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above research. Dottore So 05:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with Fernando Rizo, this is basicly a "glorified mixtape" — Linnwood 05:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn fan compilation. the wub "?/!" 08:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless it's shown that the bootleg in itself is a valuable rarity in some fashion. Alf 09:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I think that should do it. -- Mike Garcia | talk 14:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Add one more ;).Amren ^(talk) 00:17, 23 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.