589:- 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.
237:
668:
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.
667:
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
296:, 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
538:- 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
542:
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
143:
246:. 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.
497:
343:
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.
59:
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
478:: 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.
321:
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
680:
626:
385:
110:
105:
114:
606:
not only are there problems with listcruft, but the chief claim to notability comes from a statement from their website. We need
97:
17:
557:
560:. Is there a certain agenda going on these days to mass-nominate and delete articles related to 60s and 70s rock bands? --
160:
705:
36:
704:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
643:
403:
317:
242:
178:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
51:. OK, call me rouge for this if you want, but I read this AfD as follows: Those arguing "keep" note that the
675:
621:
686:
662:
632:
598:
581:
530:
512:
487:
470:
453:
428:
390:
352:
334:
310:
281:
255:
218:
197:
168:
79:
653:, where the "chief claim to notability" was actually documented, if you'd bother to look at the footnote?
425:
279:
466:
315:
The reliable sources cited show that the subject of "Queen bootlegs" itself is notable. And it was the
449:
214:
568:
573:
399:
206:
101:
670:
616:
550:
for more info). Even big magazines and newspapers wrote about bootleg releases and notability is
378:
367:
227:
63:
and redirecting the page there. This means the list stays in the history and can be revived as a
658:
594:
547:
543:
508:
483:
412:
348:
330:
272:
251:
157:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
462:
55:
of Queen bootlegs is interesting and sourced, while those advocating deletion consider the
552:
445:
210:
187:
93:
85:
70:
647:
are reliable sources, or why the claims made by them aren't claims to notability? Or
526:
654:
614:
Queen bootlegs are notable, nor can I find any reliable sources which do the same.
590:
578:
539:
504:
479:
437:
407:
344:
326:
305:
300:
themselves that made Queen popular in Iran, it's the fact that
Freddie Mercury was
293:
247:
182:
151:
64:
440:
since the topic doesn't seem big enough for its own article. Leave this page as a
131:
436:
at least the points mentioned by DHowell (if not the whole list of bootlegs) to
649:
232:
461:, an indiscriminate list of unsourced and independently unverified releases.
265:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
638:
522:
340:
406:. If some of the bootlegs were really notable, they could be merged to
521:
I tend to agree with
Esradekan on this. A large indiscriminate list.
556:. With some work this article could change to something similiar to
610:
sources to establish notability, and this article doesn't address
301:
60:
47:
698:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
444:
there since it's a likely search term and redirects are cheap.
67:
article as soon as there is consensus and sufficient sources.
230:, according to their own website manager, as documented in
138:
127:
123:
119:
364:
The Top 50 (or so) Most EPIC Pirated Queen Songs, EVER
270:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
708:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
238:contributed to the band's popularity in Iran
236:. Bootleg recordings of Queen concerts have
637:Any particular reason you don't think that
498:list of Music-related deletion discussions
492:
325:claim that the bootlegs also contributed.
496:: This debate has been included in the
292:-- notable bootlegs could be added to
228:one of the most bootlegged bands ever
7:
24:
150:Unreferenced Original Research.
362:: ListCRUFT. Digg Translation:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
558:The Beatles bootleg recordings
46:redirect and partial merge to
1:
725:
687:03:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
663:03:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
633:02:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
599:14:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
582:07:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
531:00:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
513:07:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
488:08:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
471:01:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
454:15:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
429:14:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
391:06:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
353:08:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
335:07:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
311:04:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
282:03:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
256:20:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
80:05:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
219:02:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
198:00:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
169:14:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
701:Please do not modify it.
644:Fort Worth Star-Telegram
318:Fort Worth Star-Telegram
243:Fort Worth Star-Telegram
32:Please do not modify it.
240:, according to the
185:original research.
179:indiscriminate list
563:Avant-garde a clue
304:, I'm guessing...
44:The result was
565:
515:
501:
404:WP:INDISCRIMINATE
284:
196:
78:
716:
703:
683:
678:
673:
629:
624:
619:
576:
571:
561:
502:
427:
422:
419:
416:
388:
381:
374:
308:
275:
269:
267:
194:
193:
186:
177:, what a lovely
154:
141:
135:
117:
77:
75:
68:
34:
724:
723:
719:
718:
717:
715:
714:
713:
712:
706:deletion review
699:
681:
676:
671:
627:
622:
617:
574:
569:
546:and apparently
420:
417:
414:
411:
386:
379:
368:
339:I just added a
306:
273:
263:
209:, non-notable.
205:: unreferenced
191:Esradekan Gibb
189:
188:
165:
152:
137:
108:
92:
89:
71:
69:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
722:
720:
711:
710:
694:
693:
692:
691:
690:
689:
601:
584:
533:
516:
490:
473:
456:
431:
393:
357:
356:
355:
337:
307:JÂ LÂ GÂ 4Â 1Â 0Â 4
286:
285:
268:
260:
259:
258:
221:
200:
161:
148:
147:
94:Queen bootlegs
88:
86:Queen bootlegs
83:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
721:
709:
707:
702:
696:
695:
688:
685:
684:
679:
674:
666:
665:
664:
660:
656:
652:
651:
646:
645:
640:
636:
635:
634:
631:
630:
625:
620:
613:
609:
605:
602:
600:
596:
592:
588:
585:
583:
580:
579:
577:
572:
564:
559:
555:
554:
553:not temporary
549:
545:
541:
537:
534:
532:
528:
524:
520:
517:
514:
510:
506:
499:
495:
491:
489:
485:
481:
477:
474:
472:
468:
464:
460:
457:
455:
451:
447:
443:
439:
435:
432:
430:
426:
424:
423:
409:
405:
401:
397:
394:
392:
389:
384:
383:
382:
375:
373:
372:
365:
361:
358:
354:
350:
346:
342:
338:
336:
332:
328:
324:
320:
319:
314:
313:
312:
309:
303:
299:
295:
291:
288:
287:
283:
280:
277:
276:
266:
262:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
244:
239:
235:
234:
229:
225:
222:
220:
216:
212:
208:
204:
201:
199:
195:
192:
184:
180:
176:
173:
172:
171:
170:
166:
164:
158:
155:
145:
140:
133:
129:
125:
121:
116:
112:
107:
103:
99:
95:
91:
90:
87:
84:
82:
81:
76:
74:
66:
62:
58:
54:
53:general topic
50:
49:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
700:
697:
669:
648:
642:
615:
611:
607:
603:
586:
567:
562:
551:
540:Robert Plant
535:
518:
493:
475:
458:
441:
438:Queen (band)
433:
413:
408:Queen (band)
400:WP:LISTCRUFT
395:
377:
376:
370:
369:
363:
359:
322:
316:
297:
294:Queen (band)
289:
274:Juliancolton
271:
264:
241:
231:
223:
207:WP:LISTCRUFT
202:
190:
174:
162:
149:
72:
56:
52:
45:
43:
31:
28:
608:independant
463:TheClashFan
226:. Queen is
650:Music Week
446:Olaf Davis
233:Music Week
211:JamesBurns
73:Sandstein
641:and the
639:BBC News
442:redirect
380:Twisted
341:BBC News
298:bootlegs
183:unsource
144:View log
655:DHowell
591:Rlendog
505:DHowell
480:DHowell
387:(Stuff)
345:DHowell
327:DHowell
323:sourced
248:DHowell
163:Contrib
153:Rwiggum
111:protect
106:history
604:Delete
519:Delete
476:Update
459:Delete
396:Delete
371:Oliver
360:Delete
290:Delete
203:Delete
175:Delete
139:delete
115:delete
682:Space
628:Space
575:Chord
434:Merge
421:valse
415:tempo
302:Parsi
142:) – (
132:views
124:watch
120:links
65:WP:SS
61:Queen
48:Queen
16:<
677:From
672:Them
659:talk
623:From
618:Them
595:talk
587:Keep
570:hexa
548:this
544:this
536:Keep
527:talk
509:talk
494:Note
484:talk
467:talk
450:talk
402:and
398:per
366:. --
349:talk
331:talk
252:talk
224:Keep
215:talk
128:logs
102:talk
98:edit
57:list
612:why
523:Iam
181:of
661:)
597:)
529:)
511:)
500:.
486:)
469:)
452:)
418:di
410:.
351:)
333:)
278:|
254:)
217:)
167:)
130:|
126:|
122:|
118:|
113:|
109:|
104:|
100:|
657:(
593:(
566:-
525:(
507:(
503:—
482:(
465:(
448:(
347:(
329:(
250:(
213:(
159:/
156:(
146:)
136:(
134:)
96:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.