Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It's Nobody's Fault But Mine


 * 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   keep. With the sockpuppetry removed there are no good-faith arguments to delete remaining, and consensus to keep now seems clear. Suggestions of a merge can be discussed as necessary elsewhere. (non-admin closure) ~ mazca  t 13:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note that four of these editors who !voted for this AfD: TheClashFan, JamesBurns, A-Kartoffel, JoannaMinogue are socks of the same person, see: Sockpuppet investigations/JamesBurns/Archive Ikip (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It's Nobody's Fault But Mine
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unnecessary fork off the main article and most common name "Nobody's Fault but Mine". "It's Nobody's Fault But Mine" was never released as a single and anything that could be said about it, is already discussed in the main article TheClashFan (talk) 05:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Struck as sockpuppet comment — S Marshall  Talk / Cont  23:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect as plausible search term. (Merge anything not already mentioned in the main article) - Mgm|(talk) 12:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The above proposal is not at all accurate: This is not a "fork off the main article": The song is completely different from the Led Zeppelin entry: I have posted the lyrical differences on the discussion page.


 * Furthermore: "It's Nobody's Fault But Mine" was released by Columbia Records in the original 1927 recordings of Blind Willie Johnson. It is a delta blues song and is a part of American blues history: It is not a rock song, it is not the same as the Led Zeppelin song "Nobody's Fault But Mine", it is - at best - a possible progenitor for the latter-mentioned song.


 * To conclude: Just because the song is "discussed" in the "Nobody's Fault But Mine" article, does not mean that they are one in the same. The two songs are vastly different, and will not merge appropriately.


 * Please do not merge or delete the article! If you read the discussion page attached to it, and my above posting: It will be obvious that the two articles, while related, are not at all the same. Mr. McSinister (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Struck as sockpuppet comment — S Marshall  Talk / Cont  23:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Struck as sockpuppet comment — S Marshall  Talk / Cont  23:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC) *Delete: nothing has been stated about why the Johnson song is notable. Blues might have a rich tapestry but so does pop music, and not all pop music songs are notable, as this song isn't. JoannaMinogue (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Struck as sockpuppet comments — S Marshall  Talk / Cont  23:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Struck as sockpuppet comment — S Marshall  Talk / Cont  23:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Struck as sockpuppet comment — S Marshall  Talk / Cont  23:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Struck as sockpuppet comment — S Marshall  Talk / Cont  23:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC) 
 * After reviewing the Deletion policy page I have found no cause for the AfD tag and have removed it. This article does not meet the criteria for content forking, as it is a "related article". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwmcmaste (talk bwmcmaste (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please to not remove the AFD tag from the article. Only the closing admin can remove the AFD tag when the discussion is completed. The deletion policy states under "Deletion discussion:" Do not remove the tag from the page. The guide to deletion says the same thing as well as the AFD guideline. MuZemike 23:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge anything worthwhile, then redirect per above- The Zeppelin song was based on this song, and the song only gains notability based off of that, otherwise, it'd be just an obscure blues song from the 20's. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect for reasons stated above. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP:CFORK there is very little to merge here. Only one sentence different between the two and that sentence doesn't say anything notable either. JamesBurns (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why it should be contributed to. Is anybody even listening to me here? These songs are not the same: They are related, but are not the same!bwmcmaste (talk) 04:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The song has a brief description in Johnson's entry in McNeil Encyclopedia of American Gospel Music (Routledge 2005, ISBN 0415941792) which provides a reference to a further article that I can't find a copy of and which may go into more depth. discusses the similarities between this song and the Led Zeppelin song, along with a summary of other sources about those similarities. Page 101 of Govenar & Brakefield Deep Ellum and Central Track: Where the Black and White Worlds of Dallas Converged (U. North Texas 1998 ISBN 1574410512) describes it as one of Johnson's most popular songs. According to google book search there are further references in Carpenter Uncloudy Days: The Gospel Music Encyclopedia, Dixon & Godrich Blues and Gospel Records, 1902-43, Kinkle The Complete Encyclopedia of Popular Music and Jazz, 1900-1950 and two different editions of Cadence: The American Review of Jazz and Blues, however the content of these are not available online so I have been unable to confirm the extent of the references. JulesH (talk) 09:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not sure we benefit from deleting this article, as we will only have to replace it with a disambiguation page: the term is a plausible search term for the Led Zeppelin song, but should also be linked to its original author Blind Willie Johnson. JulesH (talk) 09:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Under WP:DAB "If there are three or more topics associated with the same term, then a disambiguation page should normally be created for that term". What other term uses "It's Nobody's Fault but Mine"? Best left a simple redirect for people wanting to find both songs. TheClashFan (talk) 08:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to refer you all to the discussion page for the article. I have presented the clear differences between the songs. If this article is to be merged with the Led Zepellin version: The person merging it must provide a long description about the Johnson version being the original version, and a further explanation regarding the similarities. bwmcmaste (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is an article arguing the differences between the two songs:   bwmcmaste (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - not a notable song. Did not chart. There is no entry on ASCAP (www.ascap.org) indicating the song was ever registered for copyright, and is thus classified as public domain since Johnson's death. A-Kartoffel (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. What chart was around in 1927 for it to chart in? And I fail to see why the public domain nature of this song is relevant. JulesH (talk) 10:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Looking back at many of the groups who have either covered or altered this songs, it should be clear that this song was one of many that functioned as a great influence on many artists. bwmcmaste (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither you nor JulesH have demonstrated why this song is notable. 1) It did not chart 2) It did not sell 3) The more notable version is the one by Led Zeppelin, not Johnson. 4) You have claimed both songs are not the same - in wikipedia notability is not inherited, therefore the entire notability of the song is based on the Led Zeppelin version, not the Johnson song. And as for the many musicians covering the song one look at allmusic.com tells the story - "Nobody's Fault but Mine": 269 "It's Nobody's Fault but Mine": 18. Therefore "Nobody's Fault but Mine" is more notable in usage, not "It's Nobody's Fault but Mine", to delete and redirect to "Nobody's Fault but Mine" is the common sense solution. A-Kartoffel (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It didn't chart because there were no charts for it to chart in at the time of its release. It is described in reliable sources as among the most popular of the notable artist's works, which suggests it did sell a reasonable volume.  The Led Zeppelin song is not the same song, so whether the Led Zeppelin song is more notable is irrelevant.  I don't understand your argument about notability not being inherited; nobody has claimed it has been.  Nobody's Fault but Mine is an extremely notable and highly popular song by one of the most influential bands of the last 40 years and comparing the two in terms of the number of cover versions is bizarre.  18 recorded versions of a song is substantially higher than the vast majority of songs ever achieve, 269 is simply a staggering number.  But just because the LZ song is extremely notable I don't understand why that means that this (entirely different) song shouldn't have an article. JulesH (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "It is described in reliable sources as among the most popular of the notable artist's works, which suggests it did sell a reasonable volume." Please provide a verifiable sales figure. "18 recorded versions of a song is substantially higher than the vast majority of songs ever achieve" Those 18 are the same version by Johnson across 18 different compilation albums, not by 18 different artists. A-Kartoffel (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would argue that the song is historical in nature (being a part of Johnson's limited discography). If this article is going to be deleted and redirected, than it must have sufficient coverage in the "Nobody's Fault But Mine" article (which it does not presently have). bwmcmaste (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, non notable non charting non selling track. Iam (talk) 09:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems highly unlikely as (1) the artist apparently only recorded three songs in the year it was released, clearly not enough to fill an album and (2) the first album (as we understand the concept today) was produced in 1948, 21 years after the release of this song. JulesH (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact this definitely looks like a single to me. JulesH (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 22:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppets struck per Sockpuppet_investigations/JamesBurns/Archive. — S Marshall  Talk / Cont  23:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Bad faith nomination by identified sockpuppet. The subject's notability does not appear to be in question. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I still stand by my weak keep argument above. There are few sources describing this song, but there _are_ sources, and as the artist is notable this seems like a reasonable article.  In clarification of my latest comments (18:22 and 18:34 on 9 Feb), it would appear that the comment they were a response to was modified after I wrote them, and it originally suggested that the record was an album track only, and never released as a single. JulesH (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I also note that some content of one my above comments has been deleted, . JulesH (talk) 08:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's a notable blues standard itself, and the Willie Johnson version is notable in its own right. That Zeplin covered it should suggest as much. Shadowjams (talk) 08:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Eliminating the sockpuppet arguments leaves no one actually arguing to delete. DHowell (talk) 01:50, 23 April 2009 (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.