Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Like Phantoms, Forever
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 12:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Like Phantoms, Forever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No one has ever shown any proof that this even exists. It certainly doesn't look official. I have never seen any evidence besides this Wikipedia page that this ever existed. I, personally, have never seen a copy of this, online or elsewhere, and considering that (assuming it does exist) it is a promotional item from a now-defunct independent company that contains material released elsewhere, I find it hard to believe that it meets notability guidelines. Friginator (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also like to point out that the creator of this page, Playboy rich (talk · contribs) has been blocked for adding promotional spam articles simply to promote subjects that they found relevant. This looks like one. Friginator (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for reasons mentioned above. Friginator (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I believe it did exist [1] but as the link says, only 100 copies were ever made and it was very hard to find that link so I have to say insufficient coverage for an article of its own - maybe worth a mention on the MCR page though. ---- nonsense ferret 02:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to point out that Discogs is not a reliable source. It is a user generated resource and only one person has contributed to that Discogs page. Also, Discogs says that no members in their community actually own the item. So we still have no reliable source. Friginator (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We're not in disagreement - that's why I voted delete :) ---- nonsense ferret 18:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to point out that Discogs is not a reliable source. It is a user generated resource and only one person has contributed to that Discogs page. Also, Discogs says that no members in their community actually own the item. So we still have no reliable source. Friginator (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - verifiability seems to be a problem for this article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2013 (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.