Talk:Slipknot Demo

Article title

I was just wondering why the article title is "Roadrunner Records Demo", it doesn't have that title on the art work and none of my sources use this title, they just refer to it as "a demo" and Shawn Crahan says in one book "We sent a copy of "Spit It Out" to Monte Connor at Roadrunner". I'm just curious as to why the article has been assigned this title, is it just because it got them signed to Roadrunner? If so why is that the decided title? Why not "1998 demo" or "Slipknot demo" to refer to the art or "Spit It Out demo" to refer to the fact that it was mainly that song which the demo was made around? There isn't one reliable source that declare the title so how do we decide the article title? REZTER ^TALK ø 23:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe articles are to be entitled by what their subject is most commonly known as, although in this case I somehow doubt people are sitting around and discussing the the Demo, by any title. As far as I know, this demo was the reason that Roadrunner signed Slipknot, so it seems natural to call it that. Anyway, as for a solution to the question at hand, I would think "Slpknot" should be incorporated somehow: "Slipknot demo", "Slipknot 1998 Demo", "1998 Slipknot Demo", "Slipknot Roadrunner Records Demo", or for the all-inclusive package, "1998 Slipknot Roadrunner Records Demo". Personally, I like "Slipknot Demo"; it's simple, to the point, and most importantly I doubt Slipknot will be recording any more demos in the future, so it won't be confused with anything else. Though on the downside, that may imply that it is the only demo that Slipknot has made, which (MFKR) is not true. So, there ya go. Blackngold29 00:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree, so what do you think? "Slipknot 1998 Demo" or "Slipknot Demo"... I think the MFKR article is substantial enough for people to figure out the difference and I think "Slipknot Demo" is just fitting considering the art work. REZTER ^TALK ø 00:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to go with "Spit It Out Demo". The article even states that Spit It Out was the track of focus on the demo, and, like you said, Shawn calls it 'Spit It Out' which make me think that maybe that's what the band calls it... any thoughts on this? 219.89.92.47 (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Article name

Just thinking, right, what about we call it Slipknot (demo)? There is no title, making me wonder whether it is self titled or not. MOTE Speak to me 16:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should do that because them people may get the impression it's a demo of the album which followed. It never had a title, it was jsut a demo that they used so I don't think we can proclaim that it's title was "Slipknot". REZTER ^TALK ø 16:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

From Despise to Purity

If you listen closely to both songs, you'll notice that both "Despise" and "Purity" share lyrics. Not saying that they are the same song, but they have a lot of lyrics that are in both songs. Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but it can't be added without a source. It fails WP:OR. REZTER ^TALK ø 21:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand, and I won't add it again. I don't really understand "Despise" as well as "Purity", having heard "Purity" many times. Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should need a source. It is noticibley a demo of purity. It has differences in lyrics here and there, but it revolves around the same thing as purity does. The music is very similar to that of purity, and anyone listening to both songs could easily notice the similarities. If I remember correctly, it at one stage said on the S/T page that both Interloper, and despise were demos for Diluted and Purity. I think saying that it evolved into Purty with out a source is acceptible, due to the many similarities both lyrically and musically each song share. Xanthic-Ztk (talk) 03:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, slipknot on MFKR is listed as having been evolved into (sic). Yes, the riff is the same, but played faster. It shares some lyrical similarities in certain parts of the song. Despise and Purity have far more incommon lyrically, and musically than Slipknot and (sic) do. So why can't we list this? because we don't have a source? Well neither does the main band page. Call it Original research, or call it common sense, but Despise is very noticibly a demo for Purity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanthic-Ztk (talk • contribs) 03:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Despise is definitely a demo version of Purity, seeing as I have both songs now (I have 3 copies of the self-titled album, all bought together) and am able to make some connections. The connections between Interloper and Diluted are somewhat confusing me, seeing as the lyrics are somewhat different. I'm not sure, I like Diluted more than Interloper, but I should probably listen to Interloper until I understand it. I agree with you on the Despise/Purity part, but I'm not so sure about the the Interloper/Diluted part. I believe you, but part of me is confused. I'll add this, but it's not something that I plan on being permanant, so if you don't think it can stay, remove it, and I won't add it back. Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Just commenting there should be a "critics" section, something about the songs' influence on the future development of the band (i.e. were the songs later reused on other albums or they were forgotten forever on an album that is not found for sale?) This is the text I foudn an one of the first few articles that show on goolge:

This "demo" was launched through 1997 before Slipknots self titled album debut album. A limited amount of copies were released so this demo is extremely rare and is unavailable to buy in shops, so try ebay. Obiously beware of FAKES!

This demo included two of possibly Slipknot's most successful songs to date, Spit It Out and Wait and Bleed.

The Interloper and Despise tracks would feature on Digi Pak versions, and SNAP would appear many years later in the Freddy VS Jason Movie.

If you have this, You are lucky to own this ultra rare.. awesome.. Slipknot demo!

Head over to the audio page if you want to listen to the songs.

I think it says more than this GAN says at this point. Seriously, beef up the article... Nergaal (talk) 04:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess you are referring to this. The information there is already in this article. Gary King (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

and doesn't that qualify at least as an external link? Nergaal (talk) 05:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

and they seem to reffer to it as "Rare Slipknow Demo" Nergaal (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If you can find more reliable sources I'd support adding whatever good info that can be found. I've contacted Rezter about the [cite needed] statement, but as far as I know or can find this article pretty well covers the topic. Blackngold29 04:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Slipknot Demo/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi, I will be reviewing your article for GA. Feel free to contact me on my talk page or to answer here. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• The article has some {{fact}} tags on it that need to be addressed.
• This is a very short article that does not describe its subject very extensively. Is this all that is known about this demo? Perhaps a Legacy section or more about its influence or importance? Or how it was stylistically influencial?
  • To my knowledge all info has been included. All of the songs have been included on subsequent releases and musical/lyrical themes can be found on their articles. I'm going to remove the info with the {{fact}} tags, I guess it can be assumed they "got out" somehow, but they were only officially sent to record companies; obviously if new sources come to light the info can be re-added. Blackngold29 20:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
    • But isn't it important to the article that it is a rare, limited edition? What was its importance? Surely the book in your references must have something on its influence or effect, the role it played.
• "The band were working on ..." Shouldn't be the band "was" working on?
  • "In 1998 Slipknot were ..." Shouldn't be Slipknot "was"?
    • Yikes; yeah. Done. Gary King (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
• Otherwise, it seems to fulfill the GA criteria. It is reasonably well-written, referenced, not very broad however, neutral, stable, with appropriate image.

Comment

• Since this article is so short, the prose can at least be elegant. The first couple of sentences in the section: "Following the release of the band's first demo album Mate. Feed. Kill. Repeat., the members of Slipknot continued to write new material and work in local studio SR Audio with new vocalist Corey Taylor in 1997.[1] The band was working on new material with the intent of releasing a second demo album but never got further than pre-production."

You could figure out different wording than repeating the word "work" in adjacent sentences; also "work in local studio SR Audio" - should there be an "a" in there or something?

Done the sentence. "work in local studio SR Audio" is grammatically correct, but I have changed it to make it clearer. Gary King (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - As you know I have had significant reservations regarding this article for GA. You were part of the conversation when I obtained a third point of view on the issue: [1] [2] which supported the view that this article is not GA material and should perhaps be merged with the band article or even AFD. You seemed to agree with this assessment. [3]

Therefore, I feel I cannot pass this article for GA on the basis that the article content and references do not support that the article subject is notable, that the article contains little information on the impact, legacy or effect of this demo on the band or anything else, and that the article is so short, even if it does contain all available information. The absence of available information on the subject may merely support that the subject is not notable enough for reliable sources to be available.

• This article fails GA. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:N

Are you sure this article passes WP:NALBUMS? Particularly "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable;" I don't know anything about it personally and i'm not showing opinion, i'm just saying. --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 01:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Please have a look at the two AfDs. Thanks. Gary King (talk) 04:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I have a good suggestion: why not simply merge this demo into the Slipknot album one (have a small section there) and just get away from this notability/unencomprehensive issue. Nergaal (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

That is probably the best merge/delete suggestion we've had so far. But I'm still confident that this topic deserves it's own article. It seems that Gary King is just wanting to get a stamp of approval from Wikipedia to up his statistics, thats why he's once again submitted this and WTON for GA status, probably so he can submit the discography for feature topic status again. I think this should really be talked through logically and we should agree on a consensus and I don't think GA/FA/FT status should come in to play what so ever, only notability. REZTER ^TALK ø 15:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. You're not the only one that likes Slipknot, y'know? I've brought two of the Slipknot articles to FAC, helped on a few for GAN, and reviewed a few for GAN, too. That's why I want to bring the topic to featured status. Gary King (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

With or without that, this article is borderline on wp:N. But if you were to think it logically, the demo is really similar to the status of the re-release of the album in 2003. If this demo ought to be a separate page, then the re-release should probably also have its own page... which doesn't really make too much sense. Why should a pre-release get its own page? It is clear that until more serious details for the "prerelese" would be found, this article is going to continue raising a few concerns. Nergaal (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This demo is not a "pre-release" they weren't signed to a record label when it was released, and I feel it has little relation to Slipknot (album) as I'm sure all of the songs were re-recorded and most were changed for that release. Gary King, Rezter, and myself have all had multiple sucesses for GAs, FAs, and FLs which makes it seem to me that we have a pretty good grasp on the requirements for the said criteria; even though the first nomination failed I don't think that is grounds to delete or merge the article, it simply means we have to keep working on it. I disagree that the article will "continue raising a few concerns" because AfD has been covered multiple times, reasons have been given against a merge into Slipknot (band) multiple times, and the second GA review is coming up anytime now (and I remind the viewer that Length is not a GA criteria) so I think we should wait for that and go from there. As Rezter said at another point (the FT I believe): just because it isn't a GA doesn't mean it is not notable. Blackngold29 18:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for completely missing my point! Nergaal (talk) 13:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Slipknot Demo/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This nomination is being failed for the following reasons:

• There have been no substantial changes to the article since the last failed GAN – apparently there is no more information available at this time?
• After reading the article I know almost nothing about the demo itself, only how it was important to the band's career. A good article should tell me about the writing/recording process of the demo, and what reliable reviewers have said about it. How do later versions of the songs differ from these? And was the demo ever released to the public?
• The article only goes a sentence or so beyond what's already included at Slipknot (band), and the extra info easily could be included there without it being called extraneous, so why is this article necessary in the first place? That the demo has been covered in a couple of books (which seems to be the rationale for keeping the article according to the AfDs) hardly means a separate page is warranted. Note that the notability criteria only says "...[demos] may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources". (Emphasis mine) I can find hundreds of articles about Barack Obama's (not) wearing a flag pin, but that doesn't mean it needs its own article. (I'm sure we can agree that the one paragraph summary at Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008 is all that's necessary.)

—Zeagler (talk) 18:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

Wait a minute.... dude you can't just redirect a page like this without prior discussion. Please state your case because this article is not jsut here for show, maybe we can come to a consensus before you make VERY drastic changes like this. REZTER ^TALK ø 14:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

My intentions of merging the article is plain simple; trying to keep this article won't do much good in the long term. This article's history has been riddled with comments that the article isn't that notable enough to be a GA on its own. If you want to make decent quality Slipknot articles, merging may sometimes be the better idea rather than desperately searching for additional references on a decades-old demo that is almost forgotten. Quality is superior to quantity. —Terrence and Phillip 14:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because we can't get this article to Good Article quality does not mean we have to merge it. I and other editors alike are here to make the best articles we can and just because we have limited information on a subject doesn't mean it isn't noteworthy enough and needs to be merged in to another article. I'm sorry but this subject deserves it's own article, see Wikipedia:Merging, "Merging should be not be considered if: 3. The topics are discrete subjects and deserve their own articles even though they may be short". This was not a demo of their debut album... it was a demo that was released WAY before they were even signed to Roadrunner and working on their debut album. In future please discuss things like this before making drastic edits like this, it's worth discussing things so you don't make mistakes. REZTER ^TALK ø 14:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Other bands in the world have released demos prior to their debut album as well, just like Slipknot. However most of them are deemed unnotable enough to deserve its own seperate article. Check this out, "Consider merging such content to a more appropriate article." —Terrence and Phillip 15:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This subject has been discussed many times in AFD and GA nominations. Agreed that generally speaking demos aren't noteworthy enough and I am well aware that many bands release a load of demos. However, according to the sources used in this article the only demos they ever put together were MFKR and this... so I think this is a very noteworthy subject to have an article on. Slipknot were and are quite picky about what they release. Plus it was the demo which got them to work with Ross Robinson and signed to Roadrunner Records so that is a very noteworthy point. What I'm trying to say is... this was a very important release for the band and that adds a lot of emphasis on the notability of the article, it isn't "just another demo". REZTER ^TALK ø 15:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort on trying to improve Slipknot articles, but do you really think any hard-lined GA reviewer would accept this as an article? Wikipedia:Merging states that, "If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic." Unless I suppose that tomorrow NME or MTV will feature this demo as equivalent to a front page article in a major newspaper, I think this best be left merged to Slipknot (album). One point of interest: if the demo was released "WAY" back before the debut album, why is spit it out and wait and bleed are on both releases? —Terrence and Phillip 15:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Like I said in my first reply to you... just because this article won't be improved or get certified a good article does NOT mean it should be merged. This demo is not a demo for their debut album... so merging it into that is just as mindless as merging this article with (for example) All Hope Is Gone. It doesn't matter what tracks are on the album, this demo was recorded in 1997 in Sr Audio in Iowa... the band released this demo.. enlisted Ross Robinson to help them, got signed to Roadrunner and then moved out to LA to work with Ross on their debut album. You are bringing up different points and I'm sorry but nothing you are saying is new to this discussion and all previous discussions have came to a no consensus.... meaning that the article shall remain. REZTER ^TALK ø 15:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

One, it is possible to merge all of Slipknot's studio albums and create a hypothetical List of Slipknot studio albums article. However that is unlikely since all of the studio albums are at least GA quality. Two, there is a difference between a Keep consensus and a no consensus. FYI, if you want to keep this article, it will only stunt the slipknot wikiproject from improving any better from here. —Terrence and Phillip 15:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Like I keep having to point out to you.... just because it won't ever becoming a Good Article doesn't mean it has to be merged. Yeah I know the difference... but unless you bring up new points which can swing the consensus in favor of merging or deleting this article then I'm afraid it remains. How will keeping this article as it is hinder the Slipknot Wikiproject? Really I'd like to hear why you think this.... the project is here to make sure all articles related to Slipknot are reliable and the best they can be, how does this article contradict that? Just because it won't be GA? That makes no difference at all. REZTER ^TALK ø 16:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Consider this, would you prefer the slipknot wikiproject to have a 100 seperate articles including each song having its own article that is only three sentences long and hardly informational, or just 40 slipknot articles with the majority of them being well-constructed, throughly comprehensive articles passing GA and FA nominations. You stated that "the project is here to make sure all articles related to Slipknot are reliable and the best they can be"; a slipknot article like this one that is barely 2 pages long with most of it as empty blank space is not the best an article could be. Hint: Try thinking outside the box. —Terrence and Phillip 16:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying but yes I think it is important to have separate articles if the subject is notable enough and it doesn't matter if they get GA status or anything. Those are just badges of honor if I'm honest, they have nothing to do with notability and merging or deleting articles. And to answer your unrelated question I would prefer separate articles for singles instead of just an article like "Singles from Slipknot's Iowa album" or something like that, please keep this discussion to the subject at hand though. I keep saying this discussion is going nowhere because you are not bringing up any new points. If have any else to add about notability... then please do. If you feel strong enough on the subject, consider a third opinion. REZTER ^TALK ø 16:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Here are my concerns;

1. "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research"
   • The article is I mentioned before is at most 2 pages in length with half of the screen being empty blank space.
2. "Sources, for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability"
   • The article only has 5 sources, with only one being a third-party source.
3. Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums, singles and songs
   • This is the de facto rule concerning albums and songs in Wikipedia. Editors' opinions are futile.
4. "Articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album".
   • This is what I have been trying to say for the past two hours.

Hope this points out some of the issues, —Terrence and Phillip 16:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

1. The sources used in this article do address the subject directly and there is no information in the article that is original research. The length of the article has nothing to do with that guideline.
2. In fact there are 3 separate sources used in the article and all of them are third-party sources. The two books are not publications by the band themselves.
3. It says on that guideline page that demos are generally not notable enough and that some exemptions may be made, sources permitting. I have said before that I believe this is an exemption because this is the only demo besides Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat. that Slipknot ever released and it was the demo which helped them recruit Ross Robinson and help them get signed to Roadrunner Records and the sources provided back up these claims.
4. This article is not a stub, in fact it's B-class rated. You have made it clear that a big problem you have with this article is that it will never become a GA which is not reason for merging and/or deletion.

My responses. REZTER ^TALK ø 17:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

According to Talk:Slipknot Demo/Comments, the article was only written to satisfy the start-class criteria. Also I recommend you take a look at the criteria for B-class articles. Also Ross Robinson is obviously not a member of Slipknot, instead he was hired by them to produce their early albums. —Terrence and Phillip 17:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

No... those comments are for the B-class rating, one of the criteria is that it meets all previous criteria for lower ratings and thats why it mentions start class, besides it is still not a stub like you mentioned, do you have a problem with the b-class rating? If so, which part of the criteria do you think it fails? Who said Ross Robinson was a band member? I know he was a producer, but he was instrumental in their success also... what has this got to do with the subject at hand? REZTER ^TALK ø 17:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

How about you take a look at pervious attempts to promote slipknot as a good/featured topic.

• "Conditional support - I think that the Slipknot Demo and Welcome to Our Neighborhood need to be made Good articles or merged. The usual reasons for the checkmark, such as being unreleased, or having a big potential for future growth, don't really apply here. So the options really are either GA status or merger." Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If you need to know, I'm not the only person here who wants to merge articles. Since you and other editors tried and failed, twice actually, to get both articles into a GA, there is not much else you could do to improve the situation. —Terrence and Phillip 17:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

How many times do I have to mention that the fact it can't be a GA doesn't mean it has to be merged. That was during a candidate to get the Slipknot discography listed as a featured topic, part of that criteria is that all articles are GA. Just because we can't get this article to GA and get Slipknot discography up to featured topic are not reason enough to merge this article. That is just vanity to be honest. REZTER ^TALK ø 17:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright given the current state of the debate, there seems to be little progress as to whether to merge the article or not. I tried to help the wikiproject achieve their first good/featured topic by following the rules in Wikipedia, however you clearly don't seem to want that. Unless you can somehow miraclously expand the slipknot demo article yourself, or just listen what other wikipedians have to say on this, I don't think it is worth fighting a useless battle. You don't own or dictate Wikipedia. Honestly the past discussion(s) has been a waste of time since you won't abide to community consensus. —Terrence and Phillip 17:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is you who is being selfish in this discussion. I'm sorry if I believe that sacrificing an article just so we can have a Featured topic is a bad idea. I am following Wikipedia guidelines, it is you who just wants to eradicate this article for a badge of honor. Like I said, you are more than welcome to get other peoples opinion on this and I will gladly go along with a collective consensus. However this doesn't mean I want you to go and get a bunch of editors to support you, we need impartial opinions. REZTER ^TALK ø 17:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Say whatever you want, I'm not going to continue this senseless argument any furthur. Its a complete waste of time. I've done with this. —Terrence and Phillip 18:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I am just being fair, and by doing that I have requested comments from other editors because it appears that neither of us are convincing each other. Your input is still very welcome, I am only trying to do the best for Slipknot on Wikipedia and I'm very open to a consensus being drawn on this subject. REZTER ^TALK ø 18:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If you think this article is important, why not also keep the song 742617000027 as its seperate article. Well as for the record, the track was non-notable, not to mention stubby as well. "This is an article about a non-notable track and all information included can be used in the album's article." Touché, huh? —Terrence and Phillip 20:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That is COMPLETELY different, that is one track off Slipknot which has no notability outside of the album, it wasn't a single and all the information that could be given about that song was already in the album article. As I keep saying... this demo was completely separate from the album, it is not like Slipknot recorded their album and released this as a demo for that album. This demo was recorded in 1997, solely funded by the band working out of a cheap studio in their hometown. It is completely separate from the album which they went and recorded in LA in late 1998. You bringing up the 742617000027 thing is completely irrelevant, they are two VERY different subjects. REZTER ^TALK ø 22:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested comments

Is this demo notable enough for it's own article? REZTER ^TALK ø 18:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC comment I don't see anything on the page in which a secondary source (such as a music critic) establishes the noteworthiness of the subject. Given that, and given that it is a demo rather than an actual album, it would be best to delete the page and merge its information into the album page. I hope that helps. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And I see someone agrees with me. —Terrence and Phillip 12:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

OK that is one opinion, we still need other people opinion. One more opinion is not a collective consensus. REZTER ^TALK ø 14:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge I have suggested in the past that this article has little future. 11 months have past from the initial GAN when lengths concerns were first noted and NOTHING has changed in the meantime. Nobody really cares about this, and the main reason for that is that almost all the material in this album was MERGED into the full album. Having one section in the full album about this demo is like having a section in there about the second release. I see no good reason in terms of notability to keep this demo separate. Would anybody have a second article on the re-release of an album? Yes, ONLY if that second release is particularly notable. Should a demo of an album have its separate article? Yes, ONLY if the demo is notable enough. Nergaal (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Wikipedia's policy on merging states that, "If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic." This article has little notability to deserve its own article. The most reasonable approach to this is to merge and redirect it to Slipknot (album). —Terrence and Phillip 19:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'm not a big fan of "the article is too short" argument as a reason to merge because what is short is objective. I see an article with multiple sources, no WP:OR, as much coverage on the topic as has been released from a band which is generally pretty secrative. I do see one interesting upcoming event: The special ten year edition of Slipknot which will include various bonus material. Perhaps there will be something in there which will allow us to expand this article. If so, we'll expand it and go for the GA (which I think it is now, but that's for another discussion) and if not than we can merge. blackngold29 19:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Not only is the article too short, if that is a poor agrument to some people, this article has very little notability or hardly any significant importance to the band itself. In such cases per Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Merging, and more specifically Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums, singles and songs, it is recommended that such articles be combined or merged with a more broader topic. Also this article doesn't stand a chance for GA status; it is barely 2 pages long with half of it being empty blank space. There is relatively little detailed information about the subject and the prose is weak. Having only 3 references is a poor example for a GA. See WP:GAC. Also the special 10th anniversary is about the actual slipknot album, not about the demo. —Terrence and Phillip 19:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Too short? Too short for what? The only regulations against the length of an article which may result in a merge or a delete are if the article is incapable of getting past stub status. This article is not a stub. You bring up conflicting ideas as to why this article should be deleted. Forget about the length, forget about it getting GA status. This discussion is about notability, that is it. You said this article has "hardly any significant importance to the band itself", like I said before I think it does because it is the demo that got them to work with Ross Robinson which was a huge step for an unsigned band... they got signed to his personal label and then he helped them get signed to Roadrunner Records. I think that's hugely significant for the band. REZTER ^TALK ø 22:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Where is this "2 pages" figure coming from? Pages of what? I see nothing at WP:GACR which references article length. If the prose is "weak", then help us out and make it stronger. I am aware that the 10th anniversary edition is about the album, but it will include things about the "making of" of the album, which would include this demo (that's the reason you want to merge it right?). To stay on the notability aspect, I see three sources, inline citations, and no WP:OR (Hey that meets GAC #2!). blackngold29 03:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You might want to say that this demo is the reason how Slipknot got signed to a record label and produced their first album. This may have happened in real life, however Wikipedia is not real life. In Wikipedia we have established rules, policies, and guidelines that editors should follow to maintain a productive, stable online encyclopedia. Please read over Wikipedia:Notability. Above in the discussion, I have cited several wikipedia policies regarding notability to this article. You may say this article was the turning point for the band. If it was, please find third-party sources and put them up here if you want to expand the article. I think there is no point in defending a minor, unsignificant article from being deleted/merged. —Terrence and Phillip 06:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

All the claims I made about it being a turning point for the band with Ross Robinson and Roadrunner are sourced with third-party sources. Those two books ARE third-party sources. They are not publications by Slipknot, they are books by journalists. Journalists who recognize this demo as a turning point in the bands history. Tryptofish's statement is half true.... yes we don't have sources which are from magazines or something reviewing the demo or anything, but we have two books which are very reliable third-party sources recognizing the demo as the turning point for the band. REZTER ^TALK ø 07:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Tryptofish supports merging this article with the slipknot album. One alternative I could suggest would be to merge this article with the Slipknot discography article. Here's an example, Blink-182 demo tapes redirects to Blink-182 discography#Demo albums. Blink-182's demo for their [hit] album Enema of the State is merged with the actual album itself. (Scroll down to the end of the page.) That is what demos should be like. —Terrence and Phillip 07:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't mean to be blunt, but do not even think about merging this to the Discography page. It'll turn out being an absolute mess, obviously against discog guidelines and completely not notable there. When those demos were merged into the Blink-182 discography, they were sitting there with no one knowing what to do with them for months, eventually it was cleaned up (I think I did it?). To add the track listings, or any other information that may be merge'able on this page, is rediculous - none of it should be in a discography.

This should be merged to the album article imo. Rezter, you said that te demo was the reason why they worked with Ross Robinson and eventually signed to Roadrunner. They then released Slipknot on Roadrunner. So the thing that makes this piece of information notable, is that they then went onto release Slipknot, which was the breakout hit - the fact that the demo was the reason for this should be noted on the Slipknot page (because that is what makes it notable), not on this separate page. Every(?) album has demos at some point, and unless you can find some more significant coverage (which obviously doesn't exist at this point), then this notablility issue isn't going to go away. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 07:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This demo should actually belong in the Slipknot (album)#Recording and production section. Kiac makes a very good point there. —Terrence and Phillip 07:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that this merge seems to be the way the discussion is going. And I would suggest to the two editors who were originally discussing the issue that if you are going to have an RfC, you should really try not to insert yourselves into the discussion by outside commenters, other than to maybe correct factual errors. No need to keep score! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

So far the general consensus seems to be leaning in favor towards merging the demo. If there is no serious opposition to this within the next few days, I will merge and redirect this article with the album. —Terrence and Phillip 20:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The questions from my last comment haven't been answered yet. Specifically What is a page? and Where do the GAC reference article length? blackngold29 21:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

A "page" is everything you see on the screen which is approxiametly one page on paper if you print it out. I know that the GAC here does not list a specific limit of how long a GA article should be. However it is by common sense and using your best judgement to determine how long a certain article should be. For example, an article that is only half a screen long is obviously too short to be a GA, i.e. not enough information. However in several other wikipedias such as the simple english wikipedia, they do have a certain minimum limit in length for a GA nomination to pass. —Terrence and Phillip 22:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

A page on your screen is not a very accurate way of measuring things. Consider screen resolutions for example, my page may be twice the length of yours. Nevertheless, I do agree that this page does not have enough content to go for GA. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 03:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge

I have merged ALL the information here into the album article. Any comments? Nergaal (talk) 04:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really except thanks for doing the honors. —Terrence and Phillip 06:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Only that the cover is a fair use image and I don't see how it meets WP:NFC with the regular album art already on the article. And once the 10th anniversary edition of Slipknot is released, if enough info is included in the bonus material to improve this article to a GA, I will support its re-creation. blackngold29 14:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't try to bring up the debate again. We had just finished on reaching a consensus. Why do you really need a seperate article? (Not that it matters anymore.) —Terrence and Phillip 18:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

re Black: IF enough information comes out to make the demo article broad enough, I would totally support its recreation. But as long as the article would consist of only 1 paragraph of text, I think it is better to keep them merged. Nergaal (talk) 18:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, a consensus was reached based on the info currently avalible. If new info comes to light, which it will on 9.9.9, then the discussion should be re-opened, but not if it's only a tiny amount. blackngold29 03:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)