Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chrome Box

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 was keep. L Faraone 04:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chrome Box

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I argue that this is a completely pointless article. Lachlan Foley 10:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's an important box set by an important band. Perhaps it just needs some delineation, particularly in regards to the two discs of previously unreleased material on it? Greg Fasolino (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Two questions: 1. Why should this not at least be summarised within the band's discography in the Chrome article with this becoming a redirect there? and 2. Why didn't you consider that before bringing this to AfD per WP:BEFORE? --Michig (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not at all to my taste musically, but it's certainly a significant release by an important band that had a major role in the foundations of what is now called industrial music. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 01:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Nom didn't really cite any policy reason for deletion, anyways. Ansh666 04:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until OP provides a more valid argument than "it's pointless". — Richard BB 14:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chrome (band) as per WP:NALBUMS. Chrome are sufficiently notable to have individual articles for records in their main discography, but this isn't that, and its importance isn't even demonstrated in the band's chronology on their own article. --Drasil (talk) 05:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep...the fact that the main article does not discuss Chrome Box reflects the main article's shortcomings rather than the notability of the release; a better solution would be to briefly discuss the importance of the box within the main article. The box is an iconic release (unprecedented at the time, for a band of their genre) and a quick Googling will confirm that it's considered noteworthy (http://www.headheritage.co.uk/unsung/review/138/ http://www.trouserpress.com/entry.php?a=chrome http://www.allmusic.com/album/chrome-box-mw0000053733 ). One music blogger I found plainly states what I think can be found elsewhere if I looked harder: "Their collection ‘The Chrome Box’ is one of the most essential collections of music ever made" (http://heathenharvest.org/2012/10/12/october-obituaries-category-viii-damon-edge/). It's more than just a perfunctory box set... I would say an apt comparison would be Chrome Box is to Chrome what Decade is to Neil Young. Greg Fasolino (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.