Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muse Promotional Releases

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 of the debate was merge this information into other articles. Petros471 17:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muse Promotional Releases

Promo CDs not notable, and cannot be verified to be complete. Most music publications have promo versons distributed beforehand, Muse's are nothing special. BigBlueFish 20:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• I tend to disagree. I realise that they all can't be completely verified, but they do add to the article on Muse and make it more complete. To not add anything about them, in my opinion, would be wrong.
  I didn't add the page because Muse are special and deserve to have it. I merely added it for completeness and as a seperate page so that it would not get in the way of the main article. Also, it's the only band where I can contribute information about the promotional stock. I would encourage information on other bands' promos to also be started.
  If lots of people disagree, then fair enough delete it. If not, then it should be kept and added to.
  Xtrememachineuk 21:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Incomplete nomination listed now. - Liberatore(T) 13:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • That's just embarassing. Sorry. BigBlueFish 14:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • What do you mean by embarassing? Xtrememachineuk 15:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
      • BBF is refering to his malformed nomination of this article.--Isotope23 15:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, This one could be argued either way, but at least in my opinion, promotional releases should not be included here as they are not really part of an artist's discography per se. The exception to this in my mind would be if a group released a promo that contained songs or versions of songs that were not available commercially, so the only release of said song was on the promo. I don't know if this has ever happened, but in that case I think the promo would obviously be sought after by collectors/fans of that band. To be fair, I am not overly familiar with Muse and a cursory check didn't seem to indicate the latter situation existed on any of these promo releases, but if it does, I would suggest the album in question get it's own article linked back to the main Muse article. The rest of the selections (particularly those that are not verifiable should be deleted along with this page.--Isotope23 16:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Cool, fair enough, I'll agree then. Some of the promos/EP's have different versions of the songs, but I guess they can be mentioned in passing somewhere else. It's a shame, but I understand why people wish it to be deleted. Thanks for the feedback everyone. Xtrememachineuk 17:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment my opinion is but one view of it, so I wouldn't start digging a grave for this article just yet... but my personal opinion is that you could definitely justify an individual article for any promo EP with song versions not avaible on their commercial releases (like I said, I don't know enough about Muse to know which promo's would have these) and then link these articles back to the Muse (band) article. Another thought... you could just boldly merge this whole section into Muse (band)#Discography in a separate section after studio albums.--Isotope23 18:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, some of the info is useful though and should be mentioned on pages for the non-promo albums like "The promo version of this album has an acoustic version of Song X", or what have you. Recury 19:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• That sounds like a plan. I think the EP's are probably the best candidates for the Muse main page. I've just read my past comments and they sound as though I'm being really stroppy, I really wasn't. Xtrememachineuk 21:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge details of the promos with their respective singles' articles. --Madchester 21:45, 19 June 2006 (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.