Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dark Side of the Moo

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Side of the Moo

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable bootleg. Getting a review at Allmusic, having a few mentions in print, and selling 15,000 copies establish that this exists, but it fails WP:MUSIC. Bootlegs are usually not notable and this is especially true for a band like Pink Floyd who have hundreds or thousands. This one is of mild interest for the main article, but doesn't warrant one of its own. (Google search for sources.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doesn't matter - coverage in three reliable sources as seen in the article's references means it meets WP:GNG. Most bootlegs are indeed not notable, but if a recognised expert on bootlegs writes about this one to exclusion of hundreds of others, that's somewhat different. By the way, the relevant policy here is WP:NALBUMS, which is what I've been referring to here. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 06:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response One of this is literally a single mention in a book that mentions several dozen bootlegs, so now you only have two. ~~The other book (to which I do not have access) only mentions it on one page out of several hundred, as well.~~ (Edit: You can find it on Amazon under a different name: the reference is ephemeral.) Again, this exists, but those don't constitute substantial coverage and effectively there is only one source, which is Allmusic. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the other source, Clinton Heylin's book (which is not the same one you refer to above) has a few pages, but you can't search for it. But nobody said sources should be easy to find. Also, WP:42 suggests that "there must be at least one lengthy paragraph, and preferably more, directly covering it." - which it does. Past precedent has also shown that when I suggested creating Elvis' Greatest Shit, and when I went to AN talking about it with the same amount of sourcing, consensus was reached by a number of administrators to bypass the blacklist and create the article - which suggests such a topic with that sourcing is borderline notable. Yes, it would be great if every article on Wikipedia had 8 billion sources against them, but you should have least proposed a topic to merge to, not removing coverage cited by reliable sources. Anyway, I disagree with your conclusions. End of argument. Let's see what consensus other people come to. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ritchie's comments, it has enough sources to be kept. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 11:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sufficient sources for this unusually well-known bootleg album from a major band. The official sales figures are in this case a gross under-estimate too, as you'd expect for a bootleg. But quite simply, this passes GNG as being properly sourced. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keepIt's about coverage in RS, not coverage by Koavf. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: looks like it has good sources to talk about it. Meets the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 02:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.