Talk:Slipknot Demo

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Article title

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree, but it can't be added without a source. It fails WP:OR. REZTER TALK ø 21:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  From Despise to Purity 

message: 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)
replies: text: I guess you are referring to this. The information there is already in this article. Gary King (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: and doesn't that qualify at least as an external link? Nergaal (talk) 05:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: and they seem to reffer to it as "Rare Slipknow Demo" Nergaal (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Comments 

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for completely missing my point! Nergaal (talk) 13:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:N]] 

message: I have merged ALL the information here into the album article. Any comments? Nergaal (talk) 04:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really except thanks for doing the honors. —Terrence and Phillip 06:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Merge