Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Who the X Is Gompie!

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge to Gompie.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who the X Is Gompie![edit]

Who the X Is Gompie! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable uncharted album, completely unsourced Rapido (talk) 14:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see the song is a version of "Living Next Door to Alice", which indeed has its own article.  Gongshow Talk 20:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This was indeed an album released. Remember Wikipedia is meant to be unbiased therefore deleting this article would only violate this polocy. Please have a look at this: - [1] This should prove my point. --Cexycy (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • How does it? The artist is notable and I have shown you a pic of the album. It is a valid album, by a notable artist. they have a Wikipedia article. --Cexycy (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read the guideline! A picture doesn't show notability. The artist being notable doesn't make the album automatically notable. Joe Chill (talk) 02:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Ok then, it says in a nutshell: A musician or ensemble is notable if it has had some sort of recognition by professional organizations, such as music charts. - Yes Gompie had charted with their version of the Alice song and it made Smokie re-record their own version! A professional organisation recorded and released their album. It probably did not chart in the UK but it probably done ok elsewhere.

Notability is met if the musician has been the subject of a broadcast over radio, television, Web stream, or a similar medium. - Yes again, it was their own version of Living Next Door To Alice which caused other versions of the song to follow and basically their additional "tagline" became well known too. This album is a "bi-product" of such publicity. This is a real album that was released by notable musicians containing their notable song. This album article should not be deleted. --Cexycy (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This is a real album that was released by notable musicians containing their notable song." That is nowhere in WP:MUSIC as a criteria. Joe Chill (talk) 02:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying that the album IS notable owing to the history behind it and the people too. --Cexycy (talk) 02:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I am saying it ISN'T because the guideline doesn't say that it is. Joe Chill (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It says that albums released generally are notable, so how is this album different? There are articles for albums that were never released in the UK so therefore could not chart there, therefore an albums poor performance (or non-performance) in the charts has nothing to do with it. --Cexycy (talk) 02:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, not always. What it means is released albums by notable artists are usually notable because they have significant coverage or meet any of the other criteria. Joe Chill (talk) 03:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't answered the question. We have established that Gompie IS a notable act, as is the Alice song because of their added bit and all the other recording that are documented in the song article as a result of their work. This album is one of many products of such work, so can you please tell me how this is not notable and the other bits are? Please bear in mind the fact that it may have charted badly is of no consequence. --Cexycy (talk) 04:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:MUSIC thoroughly. Joe Chill (talk) 14:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: To quote from WP:NALBUMS, "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This doesn't.  RGTraynor  14:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I said before HOW is this not notable? I have already explained why I believe it is. The article you keep mentioning says that the album must have charted in at leat one country. Can you prove it has not? Even if it didn't, it is still notable for the reasons I have already mentioned above. --Cexycy (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I told you how. Read and understand the guideline instead of ignoring it. It's your responsibility to prove that it has charted because you want the article kept. The reasons you gave do not show notability because it ignores WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have read it a few times actually, but I really can not see which parts the article has violated. Can you please help me here? --Cexycy (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It violates everything! Why do you have so much trouble understanding a straightforward guideline? Joe Chill (talk) 01:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gompie. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Addendum: because the album itself is not notable, but its title is a potential search term. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm in favour of that, it would be a lot better than deleting it altogether. --Cexycy (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The album exists but I can find no third-party commentary pertaining to it. Does not meet WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 15:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: How about this article gets merged with the main Gompie one? What do you say about that? --Cexycy (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can certainly merge any info to Gompie, you don't need permission from anyone to do that and that article would benefit from expansion. J04n(talk page) 04:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - After reading the above. Not notable on its own, especially given the auto-redirect issues with the name. Shadowjams (talk) 10:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the band, and put any relevant information into the band's article. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Who_the_X_Is_Gompie!&oldid=1080456322"