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 redirect and partial merge to Queen. OK, call me rouge for this if you want, but I read this AfD as follows: Those arguing "keep" note that the general topic of Queen bootlegs is interesting and sourced, while those advocating deletion consider the list of bootlegs to be unreferenced original research. We can accommodate both by merging the lead paragraph about Queen being the most bootlegged band ever to Queen and redirecting the page there. This means the list stays in the history and can be revived as a WP:SS article as soon as there is consensus and sufficient sources.  Sandstein  05:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Queen bootlegs[edit]

Queen bootlegs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Unreferenced Original Research. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 14:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, what a lovely indiscriminate list of unsource original research.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 00:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: unreferenced WP:LISTCRUFT, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Queen is one of the most bootlegged bands ever, according to their own website manager, as documented in Music Week. Bootleg recordings of Queen concerts have contributed to the band's popularity in Iran, according to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Queen bootlegs are notable, and a list of them, especially of the "Top 100 Bootlegs" that have been made officially available from the band, is appropriate here. DHowell (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- notable bootlegs could be added to Queen (band), but this seems to be listcruft. It doesn't matter if particular bootlegs are well-known-- the subject of "Queen bootlegs" itself would have to be notable, and I don't see that at all here. FWIW, it's not some mysterious power of the bootlegs themselves that made Queen popular in Iran, it's the fact that Freddie Mercury was Parsi, I'm guessing...  J L G 4 1 0 4  04:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reliable sources cited show that the subject of "Queen bootlegs" itself is notable. And it was the Fort Worth Star-Telegram that said that bootlegs contributed to Queen's success in Iran; while Freddie being Parsi may have contributed as well, it doesn't contradict the sourced claim that the bootlegs also contributed. DHowell (talk) 07:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just added a BBC News reference citing a 2001 survey showing that Queen had the highest number of bootleg websites (12,225) of any band. Queen bootlegs are undoubtedly notable. DHowell (talk) 08:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: ListCRUFT. Digg Translation: The Top 50 (or so) Most EPIC Pirated Queen Songs, EVER. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 06:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If some of the bootlegs were really notable, they could be merged to Queen (band). tempodivalse [☎] 14:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge at least the points mentioned by DHowell (if not the whole list of bootlegs) to Queen (band) since the topic doesn't seem big enough for its own article. Leave this page as a redirect there since it's a likely search term and redirects are cheap. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, an indiscriminate list of unsourced and independently unverified releases. TheClashFan (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: I've added sources for the 1973 recordings. All the rest are equally sourceable, but I'm not going to waste my time if this is going to be deleted. DHowell (talk) 08:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —DHowell (talk) 07:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I tend to agree with Esradekan on this. A large indiscriminate list. Iam (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - we don't need bootleg articles on every band, but Queen's certainly not every band. Bootlegs by bands like Queen were professionally made, sometimes with original artwork and people like Robert Plant were/are known to buy them. Today's college kids should know that bootlegs were far more important back in the days when there was no Youtube and no Internet for the public (see this and apparently this for more info). Even big magazines and newspapers wrote about bootleg releases and notability is not temporary. With some work this article could change to something similiar to The Beatles bootleg recordings. Is there a certain agenda going on these days to mass-nominate and delete articles related to 60s and 70s rock bands? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 07:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The sources given in the article (particularly the first three) indicate notability. As does the reasoning provided by HexaChord. I would prefer if some of the magazines/newspapers covering Queen bootlegs were referenced in the article, but I understand that 30 year old newspapers and magazines are generally not condusive to a Google search, and having lived through the 70s myself I know that such coverage existed. Rlendog (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not only are there problems with listcruft, but the chief claim to notability comes from a statement from their website. We need independant sources to establish notability, and this article doesn't address why Queen bootlegs are notable, nor can I find any reliable sources which do the same. ThemFromSpace 02:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any particular reason you don't think that BBC News and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram are reliable sources, or why the claims made by them aren't claims to notability? Or Music Week, where the "chief claim to notability" was actually documented, if you'd bother to look at the footnote? DHowell (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The coverage isn't significant enough. There is a passing mention on BBC News, without anything to make an article out of other than one sentence. I'm not paying for the Star Telegram; but it appears to be more of the same; a one-sentence passing mention. Again, I can't see the Music Week publication. You're welcome to quote liberally from it, there's nothing within the abstract that talkes about bootleg recordings. It appears to be a paper on their reliance on emerging media. There's no way that they would actually rely on bootlegs, as they wouldn't get any profit from them. ThemFromSpace 03:49, 18 April 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.