Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of double albums

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 no consensus. After two full relistings, no consensus for a specific outcome has emerged in this discussion. North America1000 07:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of double albums[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

List of double albums (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)

WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOTDIR, there are already examples on double album which should more than suffice for the purposes of encyclopedic content on the subject. Has absolutely no references to reliable sources as is required per {{dynamic list}} as well as plenty of non-notable entries. I can think of at least one example of a notable double album which presently isn't mentioned in the article. I'll note that Category:Double albums was deleted following a discussion in 2012, so really, this shouldn't remain either. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shame people like to bash Andrew for his "keep everything, ever" reputation, but by presenting some sources he is on point here and makes an appropriate argument towards keeping the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Too wide and arbitrarily scoped list, with too little utility value -- DexterPointy (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think articles like this show the problems of using WP:LISTN as a guideline to prove notability... the topic is notable, but with WP:LISTN saying that not every individual entry needs to meet notability, it opens up a host of issues. Despite the lead saying "...in which the initial release of the album includes two (or more) LP records or Compact Discs", there are many albums in the list which are included because CD reissues in the past 20 years have included a "Deluxe Edition" with a bonus disc, although the original release in the 1960s or 70s was only a single album. How about albums which were released as a single CD but a double LP? What about Brothers in Arms, which was usually available simply as a single LP or CD, but a 2-LP vinyl version was also available? What about the Now That's What I Call Music! albums and indeed many, many compilation albums which are often double albums? This is why simply quoting WP:LISTN has its limitations, and there needs to be some criteria to limit the scope of a list like this. Richard3120 (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard3120: I think the obvious starting point is to only allow entries into the list where they appear in a reliable source talking about lists of double albums. The Rolling Stone source I just added, documenting a readers' poll of their ten favourite double albums, would be such an example. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333, I totally agree with you, and this is my point about WP:LISTN – I don't disagree at all that double albums as a topic are notable, but as the guideline says "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable", it leads to the situation where any double album has been added to the list, and I believe, like you, that individual entries DO need to have been discussed in reliable sources... I think it's a failing of the WP:LISTN guideline that it allows indiscriminate lists to be created. If we could establish a consensus and some criteria about what should be kept in this article, I would probably vote to keep it – the lead has a vague statement about being released on double LP or CD on its first release, but this clearly hasn't been adhered to as CD reissues with bonus discs have been included. And we should probably limit it to studio or live albums, and discard greatest hits or compilations. Richard3120 (talk) 10:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think LISTN can still be fit for purpose. If a list is independently notable, by definition it will have sources that state what the list is made up of. We don't have a reliable source listing every single double album ever, so I think we can chop a lot of the chaff out and still adhere to it. Maybe if it was renamed List of best selling double albums or List of critically acclaimed double albums it would make more sense. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article needs a good blast of dynamite, but with an appropriate lead explaining the expanding significance of the double album and its importance in rock cultures eg: Blonde on Blonde, The Beatles (album), Electric Ladyland, and using sources such as this, this and this, we could get a featured list out of this. I believe Miss Sarita is kicking around wondering what featured list to write next, well here's something for you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you seen my "To do" list, Ritchie333?! Hahaha! A sortable table is definitely crucial to cleaning this list up, which I'm fully capable of chipping away at, little by little. I would just need a little direction (e.g., what columns to put, whether to make multiple tables under different subsections, etc.). Once a consensus is made, let me know! I'm happy to help where I can. — Miss Sarita 16:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ritchie333, I'm not completely adverse to your ideas about changing the article title, purpose, and content by WP:TNT. But in combining those ideas, you are basically suggesting to create a new article, not keeping the existing one. Your keep vote is therefore confusing ... you want to keep a glass of water, except it should be made of porcelain instead of glass, and it should contain tea instead of water. Cup of tea? Ubehage (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think Trigger's Broom is a better analogy, but essentially it might be useful in future to look at the article's history and retrieve stuff out of it. If the article is deleted and re-created, that can't happen. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333 Moving it to draft space preserves revision history. Right? Even if not then "might be useful in future" is kinda crystal ball joggling. Ubehage (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 10:47, 17 August 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_double_albums&oldid=856299468"