Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It's Alive (Buckethead album)


 * 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   delete. SpinningSpark 14:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

It's Alive (Buckethead album)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

One of many Buckethead albums with nothing but a tracklist and some links to his own site. There are two user/fan-submitted reviews on Sputnikmusic ("our favorite guitar wizard"), a moderately acceptable source--but these reviews weren't written by staff writers. IP keeps reverting the redirect without doing any of the leg work; at any rate, I can't find more reliable reviews to indicate notability. I'm looking for a redirect. Drmies (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand that many Buckethead albums may not very be notable. However, I oppose the simple removing of the articles for organization reasons.  First removing articles breaks the various Buckethead info boxes.  While this is not a reason to keep the articles themselves it is a reason to do the removal in a more organized manner.  Second, as the anonymous reverter pointed out on Drmies talk page, WP:NALBUMS suggests merging track lists into main articles where space permits.  However, Buckethead's prodigious discography precludes such a course of action.  Perhaps, each year of Pike releases should have their own article instead of giving each individual album a page. Merge. --SelfStudyBuddyTALK-- 20:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, sure--but need we count how many of his tracks are called "Track 1"? Or, is it that important that 100 tracklists of albums that are not by themselves notable should be represented? One may well ask why a tracklist of a non-notable album is notable enough. I am all for finding a way to represent that which has real encyclopedic value, but not deleting because it disrupts a clickable chronology, that's not a very good reason. It's the total opposite of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and equally bad. Drmies (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I personally like to have all albums with their respective pages. Even though information seems sparse, that is all we can get. Furthermore, this album would be ideal to keep as it was the first instalment of the Buckethead Pikes series and it introduced all the characteristics of the series which is running incredibly fast with almost 60 albums in 2 years. However, i do understand the reason why it could be deleted. So i propose the following. For very obvious reasons we can't merge the current 68 albums into a single page. The length of it would be quite insane. I propose then that we do merge all the albums from the Buckethead Pikes series into blocks of 10 albums (a page per 10 albums) and compile all the information there with their respective covers, information, and so on. An example i like to give is that of Merzbow's "13 Japanese Birds" who had a series of 13 albums in a box set but released independently as well. This being said, the only album that should be excempt from this massive merging is "3 Foot Clearance". Pachon (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge. I agree with Pachon 10 albums per page seems reasonable. 128.226.67.180 (talk) 02:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Please note edit history of IP. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 06:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. If the album is not notable, merging a track list is not even necessary. If the album had some notability yet the article was nothing more than a track list, a merge of the track list might be warranted. Anyway, WP:NALBUMS says "album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." That doesn't necessarily mean the track listings have to be merged into the main article. Merge what's important and add an external link to where the track list can be found. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 22:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 06:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Is there a way in which we can make a functional and relevant page for the Pikes series, because i would really like to implement the 10 album page as i think as a bunch, they have some relevance.Pachon (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you please note their relevance by adding citations from reliable sources? The discography page should be enough since there is apparently no other coverage. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 01:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete On the face of it, if it doesn't meet WP:NALBUM then it shouldn't be here. Wikipedia is about listing notable items, and this album isn't one of them.  FWIW, I could not find the artist on Billboard.com, either.     ArcAngel    (talk) ) 15:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.