Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sounds for the Supermarket

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Sounds for the Supermarket}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sounds_for_the_Supermarket Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Sounds for the Supermarket}})

Blatant WP:HOAX even if unintentional, article for a YouTube playlist of library music which claims to be a promotional cassette release. The first track is from a 1980 UK library record, Sunny Jim by Take Six [https://www.discogs.com/Take-Six-Sunny-Jim/release/2724646 Discogs], cover art is clearly a computer created image and not a scanned cassette artwork. No references to an actual physical release by Muzak is made by the article. RoseCherry64 (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete because it doesn't exist. The nominator's assessment is convincing. Someone put together a YouTube playlist of old dreck that might have been played in supermarkets in the 1970s, and it attracted enough commentary for incredulous saps to think it was an actual album. (And if you know anything about recording history, 61:22 is an unlikely length for a cassette or vinyl release from 1975.) Most of the listed sources are not about any album of this title, but instead discuss 1970s supermarket music at the high level. Some mention Muzak, others don't, and one (#3) spells their name wrong. One source (#5) mentions the so-called album by name, but it was written by a blogger who fell for the ruse just like the creator of this WP article did. All other found sources are social media and streaming links created by people who think this album exists. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete: Definitely WP:HOAX. In fact, this should be speedy deleted per WP:G3. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

:It didn't seem to be created with malicious intent/to vandalize, so I wasn't sure if speedy delete was appropriate. RoseCherry64 (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

::My impression is that it was a hoax back on YouTube and lots of people fell for it, including the person who turned it into an article here. No need for "hoax" procedures here, but "doesn't exist" procedures are in order! ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.