Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flotsam Jetsam
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 redirect to Robert Wyatt. Bruce, if you want to work on it in user space feel free. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Flotsam Jetsam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be a non-notable compilation album, basically of odd bits gathered from Robert Wyatt's unreleased recordings. Hard to find any serious references for it (not blogs or CD shops). Would be happy to be proven wrong. Search is complicated by standard phrase "flotsam and jetsam" as well as by blogs and shops; news search gives no hits. Try this search. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Redirect I had a search but couldn't find any info. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 23:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and/or redirect to Robert Wyatt. No significant coverage found in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow Talk 00:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've added an Allmusic review, and I think that establishes notability. The article needs some tidying up, and I'll get to that next week. —Bruce1eetalk 07:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 05:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, worthy work Bruce1ee (and well done finding it), but I'm far from sure it establishes notability. The review is brief, not specially flattering, and doesn't claim the compilation is remarkable. It's just one source; and being commercial, has an interest in covering as many albums as possible, notable or not, so it is questionably independent. More and better sources would be required to demonstrate notability. Nom still thinks Delete is the correct option. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rejecting a source because it's commercial is ridiculous (almost everything you read is published to make money or advance the career of the writer, so what do you consider an acceptable source?) But notability requires multiple reliable sources, which this does not have. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, but we're not rejecting the source because it's commercial: we're just taking into consideration that the nature of the source to an extent influences its choices, and in this case to some extent most probably reduces our estimate of how notable the reviewed work is. Had AllMusic written a long, detailed, strongly approving review praising the album and giving numerous reasons for its excellence, we would certainly all agree that this contributed (one of numerous reliable sources, if such exist) to notability. But it didn't. I have no beef with commercial sources, nor with AllMusic. This particular review "damns with faint praise". all the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rejecting a source because it's commercial is ridiculous (almost everything you read is published to make money or advance the career of the writer, so what do you consider an acceptable source?) But notability requires multiple reliable sources, which this does not have. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, worthy work Bruce1ee (and well done finding it), but I'm far from sure it establishes notability. The review is brief, not specially flattering, and doesn't claim the compilation is remarkable. It's just one source; and being commercial, has an interest in covering as many albums as possible, notable or not, so it is questionably independent. More and better sources would be required to demonstrate notability. Nom still thinks Delete is the correct option. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete One uncharted and uncertified album, without award or recognition, on one label, by one artist does not meet criteria for WP:BAND regardless of the number of other performer's songs they cover on it, etc. Ren99 (talk) 10:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NALBUMS is applicable here, not WP:BAND. —Bruce1eetalk 13:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've added a non-trivial secondary reference (an Italian book) that discusses the album over two pages. —Bruce1eetalk 09:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article now has two reliable independent sources, satisfying WP:NALBUMS. —Bruce1eetalk 13:07, 26 July 2012 (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.