- 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 delete. NW (Talk) 01:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At the Cirkus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find significant coverage for this bootleg album. Joe Chill (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @743 · 16:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it is obviously far from notable. It's fan-made and fan-produced, and I found no reliable sources covering it. It's a bootleg too, so it wasn't even created by the artist or a notable entity. It would be a very exceptional case if reliable sources actually did cover it. Timmeh (review me) 21:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Bootleg albums are hardly ever notable. This one clearly fails WP:NM. — Σxplicit 04:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 05:21, 26 August 2009 (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.