Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/99%

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On 29 July 2004, 99% was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was a split decision. (8 deletes to 8 keeps by my count) Failing to reach a clear consensus to delete, the article is kept for now. Rossami 23:58, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Article for non-important sophomore album for Meat Beat Manifesto, a somewhat obscure band (and I'm a fan of MBM). Includes nothing but a track listing, which I could get on the album jacket. --Terrapin 15:13, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep - There's nothing wrong with having albums on WP. The page is a stub is all. And what about those who don't have the album (and might be looking to get it); they don't have an album jacket to look at. :) TPK 15:32, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. No encyclopedic relevance. -- Stevietheman 15:49, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP has dozens, if not hundreds, of similar stubs about albums, many from less prolific bands (MBM=9 or 10 albums, per allmusic.com), with shorter histories (MBM=15 years). Heck, we've got people adding articles for every song on every album for some bands (for what it's worth, I'd vote to delete almost all of those--the list of songs I'd consider encyclopedic is pretty short). Niteowlneils 16:12, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I'd also vote to delete all those examples. I don't feel that a bad precedence is an acceptable rationale to keep this article. -- Stevietheman 16:37, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Entirely agreed w/ Stevietheman. -- Wile E. Heresiarch 19:48, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Look, precedent isn't validity. Inclusion criteria are, most importantly, notability, and many albums are not notable. An article on Let It Bleed is different from one on Tattoo You, because one is a landmark record, and the other is a cruise control contractual obligation. Geogre 16:28, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree with above. I'm not against albums persay, but ONE article for EVERY album by EVERY band?! C'mon. This poster alone now has 3 other albums for the same band, in the same manner. There must be a cut-off somewhere, and I say it's non-notable albums that aren't culturally important. If this poster wanted to have a single article named "MBM - Albums" and put them ALL under it, then link the bands page to that, that might be useful, but a SEPARATE article for each?! What's the point? --Terrapin 18:55, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Arevich 19:04, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:48, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Gamaliel 01:57, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - not an article. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:10, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, although merging into an article on all their albums might be better if none of them have sold particularly well. These attempts to delete album articles could create a dangerous precedent. Everyking 11:59, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The Wikipedia is not a CD catalog. Albums should go in their bands' ==Discography== sections unless they are exceptionally notable. Next thing you know, people will be adding scans of CD covers, or even OGG files for every song. --Ardonik 04:56, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Someone might search for a song on an album. Thats one reason to keep album entries. bbx 01:45, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • If the song (or its album) is notable, fine, but if not, people will be better off using AllTheWeb or Google. For instance, I consider Manowar's "Masters of the Wind" to be one of their best songs, but I don't expect to find it in a Wikipedia search. There are simply too many albums out there. I say that we should err on the side of discography unless notability tells us otherwise. --Ardonik 02:32, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • What if they don't know it's a song before they search for it? As years go by i think fans will add more information on the many now quite stubby album articles, something they might never do if the article don't exist, the step from editing an already existing article is a lot shorter than writing a new article from the beginning. Remember, wiki is not paper. bbx 03:24, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep; Wikipedia is not paper. -Sean Curtin 05:37, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, so long as there is an article on the artist, there's no problem with having an article on that artist's every album. If the artist is non-important, then by definition, their albums most likely would not be, but there's no problem with having an album article if the artist is considered worthy. RickK 06:11, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • If the band is notable enough then add this listing (and any others to a discography section on the bands page, then delete the seperate album pages or make them redirects to the main band. I see no point in having information like this span multiple pages when in all honesty it is more convenient to read for someone interested in the band from one page. -- Hackerjack 15:40, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. And btw I disagree w/RickK. Not every album made by a notable band is noteworthy Salasks 21:21, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/99%25&oldid=356897896"