Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metallica demos

:{{la|Metallica demos}} ([{{fullurl:Metallica demos|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metallica demos}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Absolutely no sources, none found, tagged for notability since March. DEMOS ARE NOT INHERENTLY NOTABLE EVEN IF BY A NOTABLE ACT. There's nothing valuable worth merging. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. I could see one being notable if it became a bootleg hit of some kind, or got an official release at some point, but I tend to agree with Hammer here.Tyrenon (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

:: There's a lot of information there, somebody has put a lot of work in. Deletion doesn't make sense, the authors of the page should be encourage to add citations and merge the information about the demos into the articles for the albums that followed the demos. -- Horkana (talk) 22:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Citations from what? You can't cite if there aren't any sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

:::: If people have heard enough about these demos to write an article about them then there is a good chance citations exist in music magazines where people make careers out of writing about this kind of musical minutae. -- Horkana (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - Someone seems to have added sources, albeit weak ones. Still not sure this is notable, though. If this were an article about a particular demo it definitely would not be. But, even if the individual demos themselves are not notable, an article about the Metallica demos in general may be. Rlendog (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - although the individual demos are most likely not notable, I am inclined to believe that, considered collectively, the demos of such a major group are notable. There are plenty of genre-specific sources to verify the accuracy of the information and I'm sure many histories of the band mention that talk about their demos in some depth. The article could be expanded to talk about how the demos have played a role in shaping the band's history, but even without such expansion it can stand as a sub-article of Metallica discography --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Metallica discography. I'm convinced by TPH's argument that demos are not notable even if by a notable act; but notability deals with whether something should have a separate article. It does not deal with whether the content should be WP:PRESERVEd, and indeed in this case it should. Further, "Metallica demos" is a very, very plausible search term and I am strongly of the opinion that plausible search terms should not be redlinks on Wikipedia.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect as above. Eusebeus (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: FYI, delete and redirect isn't an option. If the content is merged, the redirect must be preserved for proper attribution as required by the GFDL. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

: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.