Publius Enigma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

The Publius Enigma was a riddle created to market the 1994 Pink Floyd album The Division Bell. It received some coverage in reliable sources, which is summarised in the Division Bell article under "Release and promotion". However, there isn't enough material out there to justify a standalone article, and much of the current content is uncited (and I can't find coverage of it in reliable sources). I think this should be redirected to The Division Bell per WP:NOPAGE. Popcornfud (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Popcornfud (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to The Division Bell#Release and promotion per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It was a standalone article for many years and satisfies the GNG. Notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Brain Damage Magazine, at least in its original print incarnation, is a reliable source for Pink Floyd related topics. It's also not very collaborative to delete cited content right before submitting something for deletion... Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I deleted content that was cited to unreliable sources. This was an attempt to improve the article before nominating it for deletion, not to make it worse. Brain Damage is a fanzine and can't be used as a source on Wikipedia, nor can it be used as evidence of notability. Popcornfud (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added two RS... Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That does look better now. I'm a bit concerned about the remaining citations to faroutmagazine - that's not an actual magazine, it's just a web site, and the article cited looks very much like it was just paraphrasing the WP page as it stood at the time. The fanzine sources would be better for this, if it's just a direct quote of what a band member said in an interview. (I'm not implying that the quotes are inaccurate, just that we should give an actual source rather than citogenesis.) Adam Sampson (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Division Bell is already fairly long and the sources in this article look ok after the recent improvement made by editors at Afd. Ben Azura (talk) 08:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to The Division Bell#Release and promotion. This section can cover the promotion in more depth and is not nearly near capacity. If warranted by an overabundance of sourcing, it can be split summary style. But for now, there is clearly enough room to cover this within the parent topic without warranting an immediate split. If there are sources that discuss this marketing in specific separate from the album, they should be brought here for discussion. czar 18:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to The Division Bell#Release and promotion. There are sufficient references to keep the topic, but it is of insufficient notability (or apparent public interest) to retain as a standalone article. It should be merged into the album's article as an interesting side-note to the record company promotion.

CapnPhantasm (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]