Talk:Deletion (music industry)

message: Doesn't anyone else feel this doesn't warrant its own page? Is there a reason it couldn't be merged with the Out of print article? 134.29.6.7 14:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the creator, I hoped that the article would be a place to bring up some of the industry ramifications of deletion, such as charting. I'll make another crack at referencing it, perhaps? --Dhartung | Talk 01:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: May I just point out the irony of an article titled deletion being subject to deletion?  Sorry.  Liuzerus87 (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Out of print

message: This article is useless and should be deleted.--Ghostfacebandit (talk) 01:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's how I feel about The Waiting. No notable members, songs, albums, concerts or talk show appearances. But I don't want to nominate it because my signature confuses bots. So I looked for a deletion requests page and found this instead. Deleted 64 bytes of uselessness. I'll just put my request next to yours, see if that works. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Useless Article

message: First of all... ^ lol, you guys ^ ... whatever next?
Anyway. Riddle me this:
First example
:Manic Street Preachers' 2000 single "The Masses Against The Classes" was deleted on day of release as a promotional gimmick. This allowed it to reach Number 1 in the charts and remained in the charts for 7 weeks. However, copies of the single continued to be available until supplies ran out, making second hand copies plentiful.
This is swiftly followed by
:The 2006 Gnarls Barkley single "Crazy" was deleted by Warner Music [11] after six weeks at #1 in the UK as a deliberate move to protect it from overexposure. Deleted records cannot remain on music charts, so the physical single no longer charted after two weeks. However, it remained as a high-selling download single and has continued to receive heavy airplay well after the single was deleted.
These two examples seem to directly conflict with each other, unless the CIN rules changed between 2000 and 2006. MSP deleted their single immediately, yet it not only still charted, but it went in at number one and stayed there for almost two months? On the other hand, Crazy was itself deleted after six weeks for the express reason that it then wouldn't be allowed to feature on the charts any more? Which one is it? You can't have it both ways.
I'm more inclined to believe the first one. Just because they're not making any more of a record and the copies that are still in the warehouse will be defaced (and then either destroyed or remaindered) doesn't mean those still in the shops can't be sold, and shouldn't count towards its sales total. Also, the second example itself seems contradictory; it was deleted after six weeks, having sold strongly throughout, but was removed from the charts after two weeks? Um... 
(Also, I have a copy of TMATC, which I certainly did not buy in the first week of release - I seem to remember there were a lot of MSP singles came out in quick succession and my pocket money just didn't stretch to buying them at the speed of their release, along with other artists' records. It didn't ever seem to be very much of a rarity... so that sort of backs up claim number one, even if it is deeply, unusably OR and NPOV. Also, I don't think I know a single person who had a physical copy of Crazy - I in fact was somewhat convinced it was the UK's first download-only single? Either that, or it was the first charting release to have download sales counted as part of its total... Certainly, it was not "business as usual", and this might confuse matters somewhat.)146.90.183.108 (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples seem to conflict with each other... 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Deletion (music industry). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070702210013/http://www.smithsonianglobalsound.org:80/archives_15.aspx to http://www.smithsonianglobalsound.org/archives_15.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified