Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Son of Gutbucket


 * 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   no consensus. I would suggest that a merger discussion can and should take place on the relevant talk page.Beeblebrox (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Son of Gutbucket

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable comp, PROD denied because although the album wasn't notable, the artists on it were. This, of course, is contrary to WP:MUSIC and would open the door to literally tens of thousands of compilation albums having articles on Wikipedia. If you can find significant coverage, you're better than me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. My comments at Articles for deletion/Gutbucket (album) apply here as well, though in this case I might support a merge of the two articles together, as the Liberty series was later than, and arguably less innovative and notable than, the similar CBS, Island, etc., late-1960s UK budget sampler series.  By the way, describing this as a "comp" is misleading - it was a sampler of new music, not a compilation of old music - important difference.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Response My comments apply here as well: early-ness and innovation are not criteria for articles on Wikipedia, whereas notability is a criterion. To establish this notability you need to provide sources. Do you have any? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Delete (or at best Merge) I am not finding reliable 3rd party sources making this specific album notable. The band may be but a specific albums is not because of the band.  tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep.What Ghmyrtle said !!! --- And it almost (!) makes me sick each time I notice one of those Wikipedia experts trying to find "reliable 3rd party sources" *on the internet*, knowing that in 1969 such a thing didn't even *exist* ;-) --- I bet there were not only mentions, but even reviews of that album by the dozens in the then rock (and blues) magazines, but have neither the time (nor the nerve) to find out where exactly they were published ... StefanWirz (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Response The assumption that there are sources is not good enough to establish notability--those sources must be provided. If someone wants to userfy the article and then add sources if and when they are found, that is acceptable, but an article cannot remain in the main namespace without an assertion of notability and verifiable sources to substantiate it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * comment "What Ghmyrtle said" Well what Ghmyrtle said was a link to previous statements on another related AFD that I assume had policy and guideline based arguments. So are you saying you also have policy and guideline based arguments on the same page or are we meant to believe that those other statements are a word for word example of your own argument? tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * response to Pudge MclameO's comment: Sometimes I'm challenged by those here discussions (e.g. []), sometimes I'm not --- this time, sorry, I'm not, for actually I got better things to do, like being in the process of building a Howlin' Wolf discography at --- so you'll have to take my vote and my opinion as is ;-) StefanWirz (talk) 10:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry but if the question posed is clarification of what exactly your reasoning for your vote is, as you have not provided any policy or guideline related point and simply stated "What Ghmyrtle said...", then you need to provide light on those questions. Simply saying to take them "as is" does nothing to help me understand what your reasoning being used involves.  This is a cornerstone of being able to have a discussion.  tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 23:49, 20 August 2011 (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.