Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3 CD Collector's Set (Rihanna 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 no consensus. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3 CD Collector's Set (Rihanna album)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete = This article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rihanna 3CD Collector's Set as a non-notable album. This article is comprised of three track listing from three pre-existing Wikipedia articles alongside some padded-out contextual factors. Whilst the collection charted, WP:NALBUMS says nothing about charting as an indicator of notability and states that "[a]lbum articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting". There isn't multiple, independent coverage for this particular release. A sentence along the lines of "In December 2009, this album X was included in a compilation release alongside albums Y and Z, reaching number 80 in the US R&B Album charts" can be added to Good Girl Gone Bad, Music of the Sun and A Girl like Me (Rihanna album). Please read the speedy deletion discussion here. SplashScreen (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I re-created and think that the article should be kept, since its looking lot better since the last time when is deleted. Since the box charted there is nothing wrong in having it here on Wikipedia as a separate article. — Tomica (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Just not enough independent coverage from reliable sources. It's mostly padded with info about the three albums that make up this set. Charting, in and of itself, does not make an album notable. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not understanding the argument. The "background" section, in which you are referring to, consists of information about the release and what is contained within it. I know this is probably against WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but for example, My Worlds: The Collection basically consists of the same thing; the only difference being it was more commercially successful. Also, thought it might be a good mention, the article isn't even complete yet. I guess now me and Tomica are pressed for time to complete it... — Statυs (talk) 02:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The background section is the very reason why the article should be deleted; all of its constituent parts are already surmised in their respective articles. The same is said for the tracklisting section. Therefore, we're left with nothing of substance that isn't already included elsewhere. This article is an unnecessary WP:CFORK. SplashScreen (talk) 21:03, 20 May 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is thorough and contains enough information on the independently released box-set. AND it charted. On these two facts alone, it deserves to stay. WikiUhOh (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article contains information on the three constituent albums. Where in this article is the information about the box set itself? SplashScreen (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone here should have his/hers opinion right? So he is right if he thinks like she/he thinks. You don't have to go around and change peoples mind. — Tomica (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. But this is a debate, where people air opposing points of view in the aim of establishing consensus. SplashScreen (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is better with this article. Consider the purpose here, is to create an encyclopedia, not to delete anything possible. A sourced article on an release by a prominent performer. It actually has an independent reference for the collection, not counting the individual components. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - The reasons for the previous deletion of this article still apply. This release received WP:ROUTINE coverage, there is no significant coverage to indicate independent notability and the information is simply a stretched-out compilation of text contained elsewhere. Absolutely no justification for the recreation of this correctly-deleted article. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a toss-up if referring to Wikipedia:Notability (albums), but then again so are all those articles on Michael Jackson compilation albums. There's at least a couple of independent sources. Although I'd agree that a lot of the background is compiled from elsewhere, it's at least a C quality article as of now. Dan56 (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But this isn't a compilation album like ABBA Gold or Rocket Man: The Definitive Hits. It's a box set comprised of three separate albums that have pre-existing articles. There's nothing distinctly notable about this release to warrant a separate article. SplashScreen (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all it charted. There is notability! Then, it was released to further promote Rated R when it was released back in 2009. So yeah, there is notability and of course that there are independent sources. Status already pointed a box set by Bieber which is compiled by the same structure as 3 CD Collector's Set. So yes there is notability, I don't see your big hard problem with the article. And it's C class, because me and Status hadn't got the chance to finish it, since somebody already nominated for AfD. — Tomica (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Wikipedia policy stating "if it charts, it's notable". I also refer you again to WP:NOTINHERITED - there's nothing to suggest this item of merchandise is independently notable enough to warrant its own article. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Contains information not present on her articles, it charted separately as well. Merging it would mean loosing the value that this article created, so my vote is strong keep.--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, merging would mean any relevant, sourced information would be saved. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Repackaging of three previously released CD's. Not independently notable. -Zanhe (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, salt Independent coverage is trivial, the article is not on a standalone album. Dahn (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete p b p 03:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have nothing to contribute, why bother commenting? A simple "delete" or "keep" for that matter has no weight here. — Statυs (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Contains enough information and it charted separately. It's independently notable. VítoR™ ^{Talk That Shit} 11:08, 29 May 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.