Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Why Pink Floyd...?

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) 20:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why Pink Floyd...?

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

Mostly redundant to the individual album articles, only merits a sentence or two in Pink Floyd. Once you winnow out the track listings, there is hardly any article left. Considering the obscurity of the name (especially considering the typography), it's an unlikely search term for a redirect. PROD was denied. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's part of the band's discography, not redundant, a wholly individual release. The article helps to sort out the rather complex release structure and contents. Jmj713 (talk) 07:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google News search turns up enough relevant hits to establish notability. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this really adds nothing to the existing articles, whether on the band or the original albums. Essentially this is a plug for some re-releases, let's hope not commercially motivated in any way. Wikipedia readers are quite capable of looking on music sites for track listings - completeness (WP:NOTDIRECTORY) is not a valid keep reason, and remember WP:USEFUL is not a suitable reason for keeping either. Nor does the existence of hits prove anything: a topic may have many trivial hits (or be dismissed as uninteresting by many serious reviewers in many fine newspapers) without being worth covering. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did say relevant hits – implying that I've reviewed them and believe they amount to "significant coverage". DoctorKubla (talk) 08:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Were they to be added to the article then everyone would be able to verify the work done... Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This reads like one big advert for the re-released albums. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jmj713 and DoctorKubla. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 17:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there's enough coverage of this subject from reliable secondary sources to meet the general notability guidelines. Rotten regard Softnow 18:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is reliably sourced from Billboard already, and there are sources from The Guardian, and Rolling Stone. That's significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources so passes WP:GNG. "Considering the obscurity of the name" sounds rather like WP:IDONTKNOWIT. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I may not have made myself clear. Sometimes, AfDs are decided with redirect but in this case, I am arguing against redirection, since no one is going to search for "Why Pink Floyd...?" and anyone who does will simply look for the article on Pink Floyd anyway. I am familiar with this marketing campaign and I do not think this is a hoax. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article subject has notability, but a lot of the content was unencyclopedic. I just removed all portions of the article that violated WP:NOTDIR including the track listings and other detailed release information. –Dream out loud (talk) 15:25, 28 November 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.