Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Party Album (Alexis Korner)

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 to delete, default to keep. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Party Album (Alexis Korner)[edit]

Unnotable album that fails all aspects of WP:MUSIC. Had redirected to artist page, as noted by music guidelines, but wikistalker keeps reverting its redirection. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MUSIC#Albums "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." Not only is the artist notable, Eric Clapton and other bluesmen of note were guests on this live album. It certainly does need expansion. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in discussions with the article creator on my talk page, may have does not mean that it does. No notability has actually been asserted and just because it has "big" artists does not mean it it automatically notable.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the article needs work, but deletion is not the answer for "needing work". Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Main reason why the article is still around is because a certain cyberstalker reverts the page when it is turned into a redirect. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Despite your apparent dislike for the creator, this should hardly be deleted. I think that the prolific career of the artist, very notable guest artists, and major label distribution (Universal Music) makes the album worth an article. It does need a bit more research and for sources to be listed, however I vote for keeping it and working on that, rather than flat-out deletion. At the risk of sounding wax-ish, much less worthy albums have articles... Addionne (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Strong dislike of the creator"? Where on earth did you get that idea? Seems like a nice enough fellow to me. Having a major label releasing it does not make it notable per WP:MUSIC (and for good reason), nor is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS really a good reason to keep it. Yeah, there are other albums floating around out there that doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, but doesn't mean they are any more appropriate. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got that from the multiple people calling him a cyber stalker. Addionne (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't check the page history or links, I guess. The article was created by User:Technopat. User:Abtract, who reverted my redirecting the article to the artists page, is the one people are calling a cyber stalker and who has now been indef blocked. I haven't had any problem at all with the article creator, with whom I had a pleasant conversation on my talk page explaining why I redirected the article and offering some tips on dealing with notability and on working on articles in his user space if he doesn't have time to work on them immediately after creation. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I quote from WP:MUSIC: "All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines. In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage." I do not see substantial independent coverage here, and thus I think the article should be folded back into the article about its creators. Leave a redirect, if you like. RayAYang (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article seriously fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Greg Jones II 01:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I thought that the article was covered by the under construction template which I put up in the hope that other Wikipedia editors with greater access to references would contribute - surely the essence of Wikipedia. As has already been pointed out, the fact that the article needs work is not a reason for deletion - there certainly wouldn't be many articles on Wikipedia if that were the only criterion. Most of the above comments refer to the article failing to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC, but surely the following is just as valid:

Wikipedia:Notability

Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines

Although articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics, and articles on topics that do not meet this criteria are generally deleted, it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established. If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.

If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:

* Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject[7] for advice on where to look for sources. * Put the {{Notability}} tag on the article to alert other editors. To place a dated tag, put a {{Notability}} tag. * If the article is about a specialized field, use the {{Expert-subject}} tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online.

If appropriate sources cannot be found, consider merging the article's content into a broader article providing context.[8] Otherwise, if deleting:[9]

Sorry for making this so long, but I think the spirit of the above justifies the article being kept. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Korner is an important figure in the early 60s British blues scene. The 1977 Rolling Stone Record Guide calls him the 'godfather of London's blues cult' and a factor in the Rolling Stones' formation. (This album isn't listed, as it wasn't out yet.) A number of these sidemen, such as Zoot Money, were also factors in the British scene, not just Clapton. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2008 (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.