Talk:Buddha Bar

This article was nominated for deletion on November 7 2011. The result of the discussion was delete.

Track Listing Discrepancy

The list of tracks for Buddha-Bar IV is wrong. Although almost all sources on the internet seem to agree with that particular list (including Amazon & Tower Records etc.) i own the CD and can firmly state the listing is not correct. Also, i found the following Amazon.co.uk link that has the correct listing: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Buddha-Bar-Vol-4-Various-Artists/dp/B000FA4VYQ

missing article

What happened to the restaurant chain article?

It was deleted. --Løde (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it looks like the restaurant material was added back in.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

looks like someone decided to delete any information pertaining to the restaurant at all, thats kinda bullshit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.58.225 (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

These song lists are useless. People can go somewhere else to get them.

What is this article about? the restaurant or the record label, or both? if the albums are notable, they need to be separated out. I would like to see each album have its own article, and separate articles for the restaurant and the record label. in pursuit of this, i think the multiple links in the cd listings should stay for now, in anticipation of their becoming separate stub articles.My problem is i cant find enough reliable third party refs for any of this. I KNOW this label is notable, but i have no experience with doing music articles yet, and dont know how to build them up. Can they be? are these really nonnotable compilations?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. I have one of the CD's, and was trying to find out what the other music was, as well as find out more about the bar itself...this article helped me in both areas. So I think it's perfect. And yes, the compilations are notable - all tracks are beat-mixed i.e. segue smoothly from one to the next without the usual gap, as part of each track composition. Although it's not unusual for CD's to do this, it IS unusual for a compilation of world music. BoundaryRider (talk) 09:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also think the article is useful. The Buddha Bar series, like Cafe Del Mar, has more-or-less defined a music genre. In the case of Buddha Bar, it is the overlap of world music sounds and dance rhythms. This is evidenced in the "Buddha Bar" tag on Last FM Pyzygy (talk) 10:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Buddha Bar → Buddha Bar – An article on this topic was deleted by a narrow margin a few years ago for lack of notability, a rationale supported at the time by a lack of sources in the article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddha Bar). I have revived the article and added sources which I believe demonstrate the requisite notability, and therefore seek the consensus of the community that the draft as currently presented should be moved to article space. Cheers! bd2412 T 05:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom [expletive and sundry deleted]. — AjaxSmack 02:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the support, but I would be the first to concede that the previous deletion was properly decided. Those who supported keeping the article at the time could have made some of the improvements that I have made in the draft. bd2412 T 02:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cool. the first RM from Draft userspace that I've noticed. Do we have any guidelines for this? Something tells me that if word gets around that this is a valid way to bypass Category:Pending AfC submissions things could get pretty busy around here in a hurry. Thoughts on this? Sorry I know it's a sidebar question that perhaps should be taken to Wikipedia talk:Requested moves if the answer is very involved. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if I would call this a "bypass" of AfC, since the page wasn't salted and I could have just made the article there. This seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable route to propose new content for a previously deleted page. bd2412 T 02:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right, this particular request seems reasonable to me to, especially since it's from an experienced editor. What I meant by "this" was any move from draft to main space. Are we open to accepting any draft: move request from any editor of any title, formerly deleted or not? If not, where do we draw the line. Perhaps a new process instructions for Draft: space moves should be proposed on the talk page. Do we want to become another new article clearing house? Wbm1058 (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2014 5#Proposal to move the AfC project to the new Drafts namespace for an overview of the impact of draft: space on AfC. I see some feelings are getting hurt. I think I'll take my question up there. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see what you mean. I don't think it is necessary for this page to go through the AfC process. I have created close to 2,000 articles, and I'm certain I don't need any review to create another one. bd2412 T 02:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have no problem with the article going live. I'm familiar with this type of music and have a few similar CDs myself. I wasn't suggesting that you needed to go to AfC – that's always been optional for autoconfirmed editors. Anyone can just put a new article in mainspace and then the burden is on AfD to remove it if it's inappropriate. This venue has always been for editors who wanted to change the title of an article. This request doesn't change the name, it just moves it to a different namespace. What you're asking for is a review of the content, and historically that's been the mission of AfC and some other venues as well (e.g., the WP:New page patrol). The question is whether we should treat drafts submissions any differently than user-space submissions. WP:RM#When not to use this page says Moves from user space – (new/unconfirmed users only) add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article. {{subst:Move}} rejects user: submissions with an error message. If you want the blessing of other editors to restore the page after your changes (again, this is optional), I'm not sure what the best place for that is. Maybe Wikipedia:Deletion review or Wikipedia:RfC? Wbm1058 (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I actually tried RfU first, and was told there to contact the administrator who previously deleted the article, and then to challenge the original deletion. Deletion review is really not an option, because I had no intention of challenging the original deletion, which was properly closed given the state of the article at the time. I could have merely recreated the deleted article in article space myself, but I wanted to do it in draft space to have time to get it in shape before being challenged on this subject having been previously deleted. I suppose I could have created and finished it here, and moved it back to article space with no process, but I wanted to obtain a consensus to preclude a hasty G4 deletion. bd2412 T 17:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        It's possible that another admin might have had a different opinion at RfU, you never know who will respond there. {{db-g4}} shouldn't be valid anymore because after your edits, the article is no longer substantially identical to the deleted version, and your changes do address the reasons for which the material was deleted. Hmmm, Wikipedia:Userfication, I don't know whether Wikipedia:Draftfication, which is what you did, would be any different. Then there's Wikipedia:Article Incubator, I'm not familiar with that but I think it might be on life support. Maybe worth looking into. But I don't think you should have any trouble getting it to stick. I think you can just be bold, but if you prefer, I'm willing move it. Since it's a red link, it doesn't even require an admin. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Please do - the time for the move request has run without opposition, anyway. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree with the be bold suggestion from User:Wbm1058. I have recreated some articles this way and don't think any have been re-deleted. I put a couple through the WP:DYK process to make sure they were up to snuff. — AjaxSmack 19:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

WP:BRD discussion on inclusion of compilation albums information.

An editor removed the information regarding the compilation albums with the edit summary: "undue significance, make a separate article with the info, but it doesn't belong here". I reverted, per WP:BRD. I believe that this material should be kept based on its relationship to the entity that is the subject of the article, and would therefore like to discuss the matter to determine if there is a general consensus that this material should be removed. Cheers! bd2412 T 05:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe that it is appropriate at this juncture to ask the opinions of other editors who have worked on this section, such as User:Zippanova, User:Omertrik, and User:Wilsonbiggs. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the compilation albums deserve their own separate page. Zippanova 15:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not entirely averse to that, but if it is going to be moved, it should be moved rather than merely deleted; and the page to which it is moved should be clearly linked from this page. bd2412 T 16:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:JesseRafe has stated in his most recent edit summary: "Then engage with a single reason why an article about a bar is 26000 bytes about dozens of compilation articles? Does NOT belong, splice the info off into a new article. It has no introduction and is off-put..." I assume that this is User:JesseRafe's attempt to engage in discussion, and will treat it as such. My response is that the Buddha Bar compilations are a product of the same business as the Buddha Bar restaurants and hotels. The music contained in the compilations is the music that is played in the venues, and is an integral part of their atmosphere. The sale of this music in compilations is a form of promotion for the venues (where people can go to be served food while listening to the music on these albums being played in the restaurant), and is promoted based on its connection to the venues. For example, the Buddha Bar website contains sections for both "Restaurants" and "Music", and states in the music section: "the Buddha-Bar's musical identity has embodied an innovative and avant-garde aspect, thanks to the subtle mixture of captivating Electro-Ethnic rhythms and tribal sounds, played each evening by a resident DJ". The article contains the information because it is information about Buddha Bar. bd2412 T 19:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This was resolved with the creation of Buddha Bar compilation albums. bd2412 T 20:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]