Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/'Tis the Season (Vince Gill and Olivia Newton-John album) (2nd nomination)

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 delete. Sources are not sufficient to meet GNG. Many of the "keep" !voters cite a non-existent two-artist rule for albums. The actual rule deals with an ensemble of two or more notable artists or an artist in two or more notable ensembles. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Tis the Season (Vince Gill and Olivia Newton-John album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
'Tis the Season (Vince Gill and Olivia Newton-John album) (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)

Previously deleted for lacking sources. Sources have been added (which is why I withdrew a G4), but they are a book that trivially mentions the album, a Discogs placeholder, a reprint of the previous draft of the Wikipedia article, and a press release. None of these meet WP:RS, and there is no assertation of notability. The album didn't chart, and sales are unknown, so "other albums in this era went platinum" is meaningless. I could find no reviews or other significant coverage. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • FFS. Delete this crap. It's a Hallmark album of absolutely no significance. Guy (Help!) 15:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gold album, keep @JzG: it's an original album which sold half a million to a million copies, that's more than most charting albums, so on what basis is an album commissioned by Hallmark crap? These are major artists commissioned to do new albums which go Gold and Platinum, what makes them crap? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's assumed this was a gold recording. No indication this one did as no sales numbers are available. It simply fails WP:NALBUM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Like the TC stated, the references provided just don't cut it as reliable sources. Likewise, until there are actual sources showing the sales numbers, the claims that it went Gold are mere assumptions that can not be used to establish notability. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Very poor sourcing. Karst (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep However much it did or didn't sell, it's a collaborative album of new recordings by two very significant artists. I could find hundreds of articles on Wikipedia about less notable albums. If it needs better sources, find better sources. Personally, just being able to access the track listings of albums like this is a very useful aspect of Wikipedia. Please keep. Brettalan (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those are arguments for deletion - see WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:BURDEN, WP:USEFUL respectively. Widefox; talk 09:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this sentence alone: "Exact sales for this album were not made available by Hallmark but other albums in the series in the early 2000s typically went Platinum"--Jennica✿ / talk 06:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge we require WP:V, just fails NALBUM. Widefox; talk 09:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why the argument? It's an album by two significant and popular artists of their time. All it should need to have is the title, artists, and the list to songs to be relevant and useful enough to be listed in Wikipedia, everything is just frosting. To me, it's a keeper. Southcoaster (talk) 13:04 23 December 2016 (UTC)
    — Southcoaster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment. If this were an album by a single artist, we'd just redirect to the artist's article. The complicating factor is that it's a collaboration between two artists, so there's no obvious place to redirect this. I don't think that's reason alone to keep an article that doesn't meet our notability guidelines, though. —C.Fred (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I suggest - I sense the revulsion for albums selling a million outside the Billboard system, if those involved here promise to go through all 2015 albums and weed out the 50% of them which haven't even charted then, rather than delete the sensible thing to do would be merge this with The Christmas Collection (Olivia Newton-John album) which has an article, and was compiled partly from this original album. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge would be preferable to delete. (OTHERSTUFF aside...) If there's any RS saying how many sales/significance (or other per WP:NALBUM) then I would change to keep. Widefox; talk 12:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@In ictu oculi: @Widefox: I nominated the Christmas Collection for AFD too, because I couldn't find RSes on it either. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge target of Olivia Newton-John. Widefox; talk 17:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TenPoundHammer: can I suggest starting from A, or rather from numerals, and working through the entire album article corpus. Seriously. Merry Christmas In ictu oculi (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 61,165 readers must be wrong?. In previous discussion the stats were noted "Deck the Halls has been viewed 67,876 times, 'Tis the Season (Vince Gill and Olivia Newton-John album) has been viewed 61,165 times, Tis the Season (Wendy Moten album) has been viewed 5843 times."
No one can arrived at this album by accident. Can someone in favour of deleting this because an original album by Olivia Newton John and Vince Gill isn't notable explain why 61,165 readers read this album article and not the Wendy Moten album article? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes ("can someone...")...The assumption that all clicks on this from mass traffic from a Google Doodle -> dab -> dab entries know what topic they are looking for is, well just an assumption. Also, I've never seen pageviews as an argument for notability before. At the same time, I note this assumption is used against the primary topic, which is inverted logic - these clicks are more likely caused by us driving millions of readers to a dab when there's an arguably a clear primary topic but failing to provide that to them with the effect of error or uncertain navigation from readers. Commonsense is that they're using it to remember where it's from. We know, but we still force them an extra click that they may get wrong (or out of curiosity they click other entries). Repeating that failure every year is just not learning. (note that in raw numbers 61,165 is an order of magnitude less than the daily traffic ~800,000 for the dab 'Tis the Season Widefox; talk 13:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...and Yes ("61,165 readers") have been badly navigated by us - readers clicked on the first link on the left of the dab! That was the Olivia Newton John album, the second the Wendy Moten one. (The link to the primary topic article was on the right, now put back to having a link at the start of the entry). Widefox; talk 13:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Widefox: firstly those figures are from before the Google Doodle, as @Dicklyon: already explained, the magnitude is "Deck the Halls = 67,876 times, 'Tis the Season (Vince Gill and Olivia Newton-John album) = 61,165 times, Tis the Season (Wendy Moten album) = 5843 times." secondly how does someone arrive at an article labelled 'Tis the Season (Vince Gill and Olivia Newton-John album) without wanting that article? There's no redirect involved, no one is forcing them. Please explain how a single reader gets to that article except by wanting it? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry my assumption was we're talking about now, not years ago. Outside the Doodle traffic, the navigation is the same Tis the season -> dab -> links. The motivation of readers may be different, or may be similar....what's that song with the lyrics "Tis the season"? The point being, we don't just use article stats for determining WP:PRIMARYTOPICS or WP:N. This is all offtopic, and WP:OTHERSTUFF. As you're the creator, and not new around here I'm not certain where you're going with any of this. Widefox; talk 14:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Widefox: I don't know whether you're new around here or not, but your comment: "Yes ("61,165 readers") have been badly navigated by us" makes me think we have different understandings of how redirects and dab pages work. As I understand it no one can be forced to look at a disambiguated page by a navigation aid that simply lists it, so those 61,165 readers can only have done so because they wanted to. No one badly navigated them. Unless you know of a technical feature that forces the page to open? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If by that you're asserting users click with 100% success then I'd disagree with you, yes. You're asserting 61,185 "people" wanted this article but have no proof of that theory (not that it's a strong argument at AfD anyhow, as well as being based on the assumption of 1 pageview = 1 reader). It's a flawed argument at AfD. Is our understanding of AfDs the same? Mine is that this is about notability not pageviews. It's all offtopic at AfD, may be worth taking up elsewhere. My preference is RS are found and this closes Keep. (my comments about navigation are pertinent to the dab, so also offtopic here, but I'm talking about the dab and the well known UI phenomenon where users/UI/default clicking e.g. click on the first of a listing/default despite the meaning) / always clicking "OK" (as for how new around here I am, I added Deck the Halls to the dab [1] which is the root of the phrase [2].) Widefox; talk 16:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see now what you're saying - and yes that article is true generally that given a list of non clearly labelled options the first ones on the list are more likely to get clicked, however, that reduces with clear labelling so in a situation where list items are labelled 'Tis the Season (Vince Gill and Olivia Newton-John album), that is less relevant in this clearly labelled scenario. In any case one would expect most of the hits are coming from Google or off the templates in other Olivia Newton John and Vince Gill articles as readers navigate between articles. As for sources, well we have Billboard confirming this was an original album by two major artists which sold exceptionally well - as well as Hallmarks other 500,000 plus albums, so hopefully a closer will recognize that as factual. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We may convince ourselves that UIs are easy enough, but users have habits and high standards nowadays. We're both speculating their usage, but ultimately we can't make any claim about "61,165 readers are right (or wrong)". The simplest explanation is they clicked the first link on the left . The carol entry has often had no link on the left. If I understand usage stats, mobile is larger nowadays so with small screens a link on the right may be less visible, I don't know. People click defaults. Widefox; talk 17:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:In ictu oculi I wouldn't put too much hope in clear labelling. That research, and the well known default effect of users clicking "OK" without reading the message (however clear the labelling) results in error navigation at dabs. 61K clicks out of ~1M a day (at peak, if that's the period you're referring to) is less than 10%, so not significant, and may (I don't know user's intentions) just be default effect/error navigation (as someone else noted about view stats falling off with this dab). Widefox; talk 13:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a hoax, sources can be found if sought. This is a notable collaboration between highly notable artists. bd2412 T 14:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Added to article "their cd together did very well for us so we knew we'd had success with her in the past" that is direct confirmation from Hallmark in Billboard that the original album sold as well as the other albums which went Gold and Platinum. And confirmation that it was the reason Hallmark commissioned Olivia Newton-John to do the Breast Cancer album Stronger than Before. @Jennica: @Walter Görlitz: @C.Fred: does "very" in that sentence address your concern? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) The phrase "did very well for us" may mean something different for Hallmark than it does for Billboard or a record company. It doesn't address my concerns, no, but it is some positive press. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've rewritten what you've added. The cited source is a passing mention in a Billboard magazine piece about a different topic. The phrase "their CD did very well for us" is vague.--Cúchullain t/c 16:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Olivia Newton-John discography. The "keep" !votes are missing the issue: without real coverage in reliable sources we can cite, there can be no article as the content is not WP:VERIFIABLE or WP:NOTABLE. I can't find any either - no reviews, no real information besides minor mentions. Olivia Newton-John is the more high profile of the two artists, so it makes sense to redirect to her discography article where the collaboration with Gill and London Symphony Orchestra can be noted, along with anything else that can actually be cited.--Cúchullain t/c 18:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What isn't verifiable? This is mentioned in Billboard, ONJ biography, sales are confirmed. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the information wasn't verifiable, and I've removed everything that wasn't attributed to a reliable source. Large parts of the text were attributed to unusable sources like a mirror of the deleted version of this Wikipedia article and a bare Discogs link that didn't actually verify the material. Other parts were not supported at all. In my own search, I couldn't find sources to back it up; there's a biography of Olivia Newton-John, but I couldn't find mention of this album in it. Everything else is minor mentions in articles (or press releases) about other topics, nothing that covers this topic substantively.--Cúchullain t/c 16:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does WP:NOTINHERITED apply? Widefox; talk 13:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems like a significant enough studio album by two notable artists. It's never likely to reach GA status, but it has enough real world significance and satisfies WP:V, so I don't see a benefit from deleting it. --Michig (talk) 09:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, I too don't see any benefit from deleting it. not the most significant album, not also not completely pointless to have an article. Frietjes (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is that covered by WP:NOHARM ? Widefox; talk 18:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Carbrera someone else has analysed the page views - as they are easily explained at an error from the main navigation (~1M readers per day) so not a solid argument, so in reality, a pageview argument has no weight from a WP:N, and may be based on false cause/effect. Widefox; talk 23:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At the risk of repeating myself, still neither generally notable nor notable as an album. Performers still don't grant notability and page views are not a criteria of notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
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/%27Tis_the_Season_(Vince_Gill_and_Olivia_Newton-John_album)_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1143887197"