Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barenaked Ladies demo tapes (3rd nomination)

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 Hey look, someone actually bothered to improve the damn article instead of saying "but there are sources" and not showing where they are. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barenaked Ladies demo tapes

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

I love how we still can't get a consensus on this after two tries. I'll just restate my piece from last time with a bit of elaboration: Bunching all their demo tapes into one article does not fix the fact that no secondary sources exist. The only sources here are all primary sources and a dodgy looking discography site. A search for these titles + Barenaked Ladies found only those infernal books that copy Wikipedia articles. Despite what one user said in the last AFD, the documentary and Behind the Music are primary sources, since the band members themselves were interviewed in it.

The last AFD had one "keep" and one "delete", and gathered no further !votes after being relisted twice. How many more times do we need to go around before anyone reaches a conclusion? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

speedy close as tendentious disruption. "I'll just restate my piece from last time" What's up Hammer? Did consensus give the wrong answer again last month? Are you going to keep re-nominating this until eventually we get it right? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus didn't "give the wrong answer again" because there was no consensus in the first place. And show me where it says re-nominating after a "no consensus" is disruptive. I see that all the time. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Geez, Hammer. How many more times will you nominate this page? The past two AfD's had no consensus, and it's unlikely that this one will either. I'm actually ChineseLamps, the person who built this page, and I'm posting here because I can't seem to find my old password. The sources are already strong enough as it is, as how much stronger can you get than a documentary and a TV special? The site you're calling "dodgy" actually used to be a very reputable site in the early days of the internet, and contains lots of important information. This article as it is is very notable, as BNL have always been a crucial part of Canada's music scene. We even have a page for Led Zeppelin bootleg recordings, and up in my native Canada, few people even know any songs other than Stairway to Heaven. If you ask any Canadian about BNL, it is unlikely to find someone who won't start singing Enid. For someone who claims to be a fan of BNL, you sure do seem inclined on getting this page off Wikipedia. 65.190.66.32 (talk) 04:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added several reliable sources to the article. It could still use some cleaning up, and admittedly I'm not finding much on Barenaked Recess and Variety Recordings, but the overall inclusion of the sources should demonstrate that there is enough verifiable information to justify at least an article on the topic. Merging into the main Barenaked Ladies article or discography page does not seem reasonable (WP:UNDUE); if anything, the Buck Naked and Barenaked Lunch entries are closer to warranting individual articles (like The Yellow Tape) than deletion. Maybe recreating those pages would be the best way to proceed, especially since the Yellow Tape section of this article is mostly just duplicated in its standalone article anyway. Another option would be to keep all the Yellow Tape info confined to this article, but since it satisfies WP:NALBUMS on its own merits (top-10 charting release, certified platinum), having its own article makes sense. Gongshow ^Talk 09:09, 8 September 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.