Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Entire Population of Hackney
Source: 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 Keep (non-admin closure). I want to note that merging to ASAP (band) can still be appropriate. Please, discuss this separatelly. Ruslik (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Entire Population of Hackney
- The Entire Population of Hackney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Fails
talk) 15:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
- Keep This recording is mentioned in Iron Maiden's official biography, and in other places. Clearly meets WP:MUSIC a lot more than these half-assed bands everyone is alleging are notable. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This article, while focused on the bootleg album, is something of a hybrid. It discusses both the album and the group referred to as "The Entire Population of Hackney", and if nothing else the group would appear to fulfil WP:MUSIC criterion 6. Although the sources cited in the article are poor, assuming LuciferMorgan's statement that it's discussed in Iron Maiden's official biography is correct I think this group/album can be considered notable. ~ mazca t | c 17:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If the group is notable, make an article about the group. This is about the bootleg album. If the album is, in fact, referenced in the "official biography", that's nice. It isn't a third-party source, but it would be worth adding to the article. In both cases, the bootleg is not notable without "significant independent coverage in reliable sources" (per talk) 20:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If the group is notable, make an article about the group. This is about the bootleg album. If the album is, in fact, referenced in the "official biography", that's nice. It isn't a third-party source, but it would be worth adding to the article. In both cases, the bootleg is not notable without "significant independent coverage in reliable sources" (per
- What doesn't make sense to me is why this is about the bootleg album, because the group is called The Entire Population of Hackney, and that is what is referenced in the official biography. There is zero mention of this bootleg - I just checked the biography, so my previous statement was misleading. I feel there should be an article about the group, but not about this bootleg. The article should be written to be about the group and not a bootleg. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is, the bootleg, the performances, and the group all kinda go hand-in-hand. When you have a group made up of notable members, but mostly all they did was produce one recording and a few concerts, I think discussing all three of those things together is the best way. I agree, though, that this article should be reworded somewhat to be "an article about the group that also discusses the bootleg" rather than "an article about the bootleg that also discusses the group". ~ mazca t | c 07:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What doesn't make sense to me is why this is about the bootleg album, because the group is called The Entire Population of Hackney, and that is what is referenced in the official biography. There is zero mention of this bootleg - I just checked the biography, so my previous statement was misleading. I feel there should be an article about the group, but not about this bootleg. The article should be written to be about the group and not a bootleg. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Without saying that the group is or is not notable, it seems clear to me that the chain of dependancy is upsidedown on this one. We can have an article on a band without mentioning performances, or one on the band and performances without mentioning a bootleg of the performances. What we have is an article about a bootleg that describes the band and performances because we do not have an article about the band. The current article on the bootleg cites blogs, forum posts, geocities and such. No reliable sources = no notability for the bootleg. There might be reliable sources for the band, but I didn't find them (I wasn't looking for them). If we're all in agreement that we have nothing on the bootleg, let's copy the existing article to a sandbox, delete the bootleg and build an article on the band (if we can show notability). Make sense? - talk) 12:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Without saying that the group is or is not notable, it seems clear to me that the chain of dependancy is upsidedown on this one. We can have an article on a band without mentioning performances, or one on the band and performances without mentioning a bootleg of the performances. What we have is an article about a bootleg that describes the band and performances because we do not have an article about the band. The current article on the bootleg cites blogs, forum posts, geocities and such. No reliable sources = no notability for the bootleg. There might be reliable sources for the band, but I didn't find them (I wasn't looking for them). If we're all in agreement that we have nothing on the bootleg, let's copy the existing article to a sandbox, delete the bootleg and build an article on the band (if we can show notability). Make sense? -
- Merge with ASAP (band) would seem to solve the problems. Bondegezou (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've re-written the article to be primarily about the group rather than the bootleg (as per Mdsummermsw above), although basically the content is much the same. I think there is some valuable information here, but am myself uncertain whether it warrants a separate article. I was tempted to just cut'n'paste the whole thing and dump it in the beginning of ASAP (band) and set up a re-direct. Bondegezou (talk) 11:46, 27 July 2008 (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.