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.
Does not appear to meet notability requirements. Previous deletion discussion seems to predate
WP:MUSIC, as all the arguments seem to rely on notability being inherited.
RF23 (
talk) 20:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment This album does not exist.
WP:NALBUM would normally be the criteria for deciding whether to keep the article, but in this case, the "album" appears to have been a rumor invented or encouraged by the band for the sake of having an air of mystique, so the relevant criteria would instead be whatever we use to adjudge the notability of
cryptids and
UFO sightings. AfD is the wrong venue for determining whether this should be deleted or not, since obviously we do not want to have a redlink here; the nominator should pursue a redirect or merge discussion instead.
Chubbles (
talk) 00:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Do not understand the rationale for deletion. Chubbles’ theory above is unsupported speculation contradicted by the available evidence as cited in the article; the fact that it is widely discussed in major music magazines is in itself prima facie evidence of its notability. There are many articles about lost films, lost manuscripts, etc. so the fact that it is unavailable commercially is not relevant.
Tothebarricades (
talk) 02:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I guess the real question (regardless of whether it is a "lost work" or a fictional album) is whether it passes GNG.
Chubbles (
talk) 05:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Something tells me Larkin wrote that from the band's press kit, not having heard anything firsthand, but... there it is, in the books.
Chubbles (
talk) 18:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Why is it that you bookburners always seem to get your way in these things? Completely fascistic philistine idiocy. Why even bother discussing?
Tothebarricades (
talk) 20:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisted per
this deletion review.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
S MarshallT/
C 19:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep The article appears to meet
WP:GNG. I would point to the three sources already used by the article, which report on the Casketjack leak.[1][2][3] There are other sources but most of them are too closely related to the band or label for them to qualify of
WP:GNG in my opinion. It also seems to meet
WP:NALBUMS on the same grounds, but if we are being honest here I fail to see how something qualifing for
WP:GNG could fail to meet
WP:NALBUMS. Apart from this more formal argument, I also think it would be of detriment to the encyclopedia to lose this article. It is an interesting subject that is worth reading about. Since there is enough material to make a well cited article, I believe it would be best to keep it.
AquitaneHungerForce (
talk) 21:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - It may be a lost album, but the sources in the article (including
this one), and the one shown by
Superastig prove it's notability. (
This one). Koridas📣 05:38, 8 July 2020 (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.