Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Confusion the Waitress

Confusion the Waitress

Only 1 known copy in existence by Matt V. Why does this deserve an article, then? User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This release was the basis for a commercial remix that was later put out on a compilation. For completion it has been included. There may be more than one copy, but they haven't been uncovered yet. What is the minimum for it to be useful? Sometimes only a handful of copies of a release are made. Fans want to know about these release regardless of how many known copies exist. Also its a part of Darren Emerson remix history, and is notable for that also. Negative1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Negative1 (talk • contribs) .
Because it is a legitimate musical release that happens to be exceptionally rare. I vote keep for the sake of completion. Ethan 23:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a genuine record by a noteable group. The exceptionally small edition actually makes it of greater interest bearing in mind the numbers they could have sold at this time. Ac@osr 01:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, not only is this an incredibly bizarre little single, but it's a single by Underworld, arguably one of the most important electronic music groups ever. Absolutely nothing wrong with this single. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Not every album from notable groups is notable. Merge it to Underworld if it is that interesting. Ted Talk 03:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Which ones are, then, if only some are? --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is incredibly rare, and of course rather expensive to own. Its existence was not known until it surfaced on ebay, and failed to meet the reserve price??? Sounds a bit like eBay pimping by the owner. ~ trialsanderrors 07:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is not written by the owner. As far as I know, the owner of this single hasn't seen the article (yet). Let me emphasize again that there are no ill intentions here. I would be happy to edit it so that it doesn't sound like "eBay pimping" -- ~~am I allowed to do that while it's up for deletion? (I'm rather new to wikipedia.)~~ I've edited the article to appear more professional. Let me know if anyone still objects. Ethan 16:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I am the owner of this said record, i would like to set some records straight on it, i won it from ebay from a genuine source, there, are as far as i know, only TWO copies in existence, one owned by me and one owned by the remixer (Darren Emerson). There has never been any ebay 'pimping' of the record as far as i know (i've never put it on ebay). The track itself appeared as a remix on a compilation album and the 2 acetates were prodced by Darren to promote the mix on the compilation and also the album from which the original came. It is a genuine release, and as such should be considered in the Underworld page. Would Beatles fans dismiss a rare one off recording of their songs?? As such to remove it from the discography side of the Wiki would be like saying this track doesn't exist - which of course it does.--Mattval1 17:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After reading this, I go with Delete simply on verifiability grounds. There also seems be a problem with the meaning of "release". Since the track was widely, commercially released on a different medium and not as a 7" this makes this a test pressing. And I'm sorry, Underground are not the Beatles. ~ trialsanderrors 17:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Underworld is not the Beatles, no. However, in the electronic music world, they're arguably top 5 in terms of importance to the genre. Test pressing or not, it's a definite, genuine release and I see nothing to indicate why this shouldn't be included. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Based on what? In any case, the term "release" has a meaning, namely made available to the public at large. The originator gives up control over who gets the item. If it's passed on to one person, that's a gift. ~ trialsanderrors 19:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable for being extremely rare, and no good target to merge to exists. -- grm_wnr Esc 20:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? It wouldn't merit a single line in the band's article? User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It merits more than a single line, and that would be too much for the band article (well, if the band article was of higher quality anyway). If there was an Underworld discography article, I'd support a merge there, but (ironically) it's too insignificant for the main article. -- grm_wnr Esc 21:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - It merits more than a single line Really? How so? I'm not even sure it merits that single line to begin with. --Calton | Talk 04:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a test pressing, not a release. Underworld-Cruft. --Calton | Talk 04:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Did any halfway reputable music magazine ever write about this? Because the three references just scream Undercruft. ~ trialsanderrors 06:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Calton. Verifiability is questionable too. Stifle (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Calton. --Atrian 03:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not a waitress but I'm confused. How is this supposed to be notable??? --Charlesxavier 04:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Second Toughest in the Infants, the album it comes from (well, the original version). This is a bit of interesting trivia that deserves a few lines on the article about the album, but nothing more. Fram 08:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]