Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call Music! 86 (UK series) (2nd nomination)

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 keep. SarahStierch (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call Music! 86 (UK series)[edit]

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

They can't all be zingers. The individual songs are notable, of course, but I see no reason to believe that this compilation is. The internetz are full of listings and points of sale, but nothing in the way of reviews or significant discussion. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete notability is not inherited. The songs may be notable, but there re no signs this compilation is. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It'll be released soon - wont it chart and therefore meet the notability standards? Found this too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing in the requirements suggests that charting in and of itself makes an album notable. Despite their popularity, few, if any, of the individual volumes receive "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - "significant" is a weasel-word bounded about here with no real meaning. All these seem to hit the #1 spot on notable charts, and I suspect this one will too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charting is a sign that an album MAY be notable enough for an article, not that it IS notable enough. If there is no coverage, and this article can never be expanded past a stub, then it should be deleted (along with 1-85 too imo) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the argument either way for keep/deletion, and possibly agree that the others don't really cut it. But deleting an article as it can never get past stub-state would get rid of 90% or more of the articles on here! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Surely it's got to be a keep. Every other album in the series has a page! Cls14 (talk) 12:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And? Drmies (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's mostly a list linking other articles, rather than an article in itself, so even if it doesn't really meet the article criteria, it does meet the list criteria. It is a good list because it won't be added to in the future, it links to many articles on records, and may in a few years time be of historical interest to someone interesting in popular music. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an interesting interpretation of "article". Rename the article, then, "List of songs on Now That's What I Call Music! 86 (UK series)". Sorry, but I don't buy this at all. And as a list, it's directory information that could be handled in the main article with a link to the company website, which lists these things comprehensively (and sells them, I suppose). Drmies (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. It is not only an interesting interpretation, it is an entirely logical interpretation as well. The article is fine, as a list, yes, it doesn't matter whether you buy it or not it is principally a list. It's better to keep readers inside the wiki rather than having them go to the publisher's website, then come back to Wikipedia to look up the songs listed. Bit daft your suggestion isn't it? Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - No. It's an article on an album, and WP:NALBUMS applies. It's not a list. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even as a hypothetical list, it would fail WP:LISTN in the same way it fails WP:NALBUMS. (Additionally as a list, I would claim its probably laregely a duplicate of List_of_UK_Singles_Chart_number_ones_of_the_2010s#2013. The series of albums probably crosses some threshhold of notability, so all of the articles could be merged into a Now thats what I call musik (UK series article, that had inline lists for every year (similar to the "episodes of tv show X" articles. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because every song is a clear pass of the GNG. Now you could make some argument about inheriting, but inheriting works towards *finer* granularity, and this is clearly the other way. It doesn't make sense to merge the album into the songs... You cannot have a book that is famous, but an author that is not. Even if the author is famous only for that one book, it is still the author article that should be kept, and the book one included in that. The Steve 18:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But if a book was published that was a just a collection of notable books from other notable authors, it would not be notable unless it received independent coverage in reliable sources. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Your assertion that inheritance refers only to finer granularity is flatly contradicted by the WP:NALBUMS text "An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article. Conversely, an album does not need to be by a notable artist or ensemble to merit a standalone article if it meets the general notability guideline." It is also flatly contradicted by WP:NOTINHERIT "Similarly, parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent, either: not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable; not every organization to which a notable person belongs (or which a notable person leads) is itself notable." This portion of the guideline is also directly applicable to this article " Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting."Gaijin42 (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Really?! That's not what I read: (three of the notability guidelines, for books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances). As for your other point, I think it would be extremely difficult to find a famous album that did not make the artist famous. I will admit that my opinion of upwards inheritance (song to singer, book to author, game to publisher, product to manufacturer etc) is slightly more generous than consensus. The Steve 18:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage here and here. As it's released today, there will be more too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep. No doubt this will chart at #1 at the end of the week (as have all the previous 85 volumes) which gives it certain notability. I am weary however of these lazy articles being created where no effort is put in to clarify why this particular volume is in any way interesting to read about. I guess the creators just like to add it to their list of "articles created", when all they've really done is written a tracklisting. Other than it reaching No.1 in the charts, is there anything interesting to say about this album? Tedious.Tuzapicabit (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- - I have added information that it contains an exclusive mix of one of the songs, a mix which appears to be unavailable anywhere else. Billy H 19:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Tuzapicabit says, it seems inevitable that this album will top the UK Compilation Chart this weekend. I'd also put money on it being the UK's best-selling compilation album of the year. For these reasons, I feel that this album is sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How can you justify having 85 Articles and them missing one?194.74.237.82 (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2013 (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.