Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Once Upon a Time (Marty Stuart 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   keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Once Upon a Time (Marty Stuart album)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable release. Non-notable label. Absolutely no sources found except Allmusic, which isn't so much a "review" as a one-sentence summary. Redirect declined. Not all albums by notable artists are inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, speedy close, disruptive nomination. Nominator is clearly acting out of spite after his inaccurately grounded redirect was objected to. The issuing label, CMH, is clearly notable, and the nominator's (here and elsewhere) repeated assertion otherwise is absolutely unmoored from any factual basis. The nominator's claim that sources can't be found is ridiculous; as from the AllMusic source mentioned, a simple Google Books search alone, which the nominator clearly didn't perform, turns turns up a few dozen references, including Billboard coverage of the album's release about 30 years ago. In addition, per WP:OSE, "In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items." Kicking a hole in the discography of a notable artist clearly "serves no useful purpose." The nominator has provided no valid reasons for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Show your sources and quit dumping your accusations of bad faith. What the hell is your problem? Every time I make a nomination you're here to bitch about it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Billboard reference appears to be nothing more than a trivial mention - enough to confirm existence, but nothing more. PhilKnight (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe you are undervaluing the significance of the coverage. It was the only upcoming release mentioned on the front page of the Billboard country section; it was not simply an entry in a laundry list of things to come. Such coverage indicates a comparatively high-profile release. In addition, the reference to a "12-page booklet" is important. This was an LP-only release; while contemporary CDs may include such things as a matter, of course, it was rather unusual (and expensive) for one to be included with a single LP -- it's another signal of a significant release. Few if any of the publications which regularly covered bluegrass thirty years ago are archived online; we should exercise careful judgment if assessing a subject based only on what can be conveniently found online. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - lack of significant coverage. If editors have found sources, I suggest they add to them to the article. PhilKnight (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep.  The All Music Guide to Country includes a substantial review of this album, describing it as "certainly a special compilation" of a "true musical treasure" that "documents the early years and provides a glimpse into the development of an artist of character and quality."  It also appears to be discussed in Country Music: a Biographical Dictionary and in a Washington Post retrospective article about Stuart's work although these are pay sites so the entire source isn't visible.  In any event, I don't see how deleting this content is beneficial to the encyclopedia's coverage of this major figure in country and bluegrass.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:OSE "Deletion of Articles" and especially "Precedent in Usage" as cited above by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. In this case the album is part of a continuum of 14 out of 16 studio albums for a notable artist whose body of work spans over 30 years. Of these 16 albums, 10 charted in the USA but only 3 were certified gold anywhere, so consistency and precedent would seem to overrule the relatively lower notability of this album. Banazir (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep CMH website notes the album and even gives a precise release date and catalogue number: I also found record of The Washington Post music critic Mike Joyce reviewing the album in the August 21, 1992 issue. If anyone has access to those archives, it might help.Publichall (talk)--Publichall (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am not sure the Allmusic review deals enough with this album to confirm notability, but if the article is not kept, a redirect (or possibly merge any content sourceable to the allmusic review) seems more in conformance with WP:NALBUM than deletion. The nomination states "redirect declined," but just because one or several editors disagree with a redirect does not mean that is not the appropriate action, nor is that is a valid reason for deletion. Rlendog (talk) 02:32, 29 September 2010 (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.