Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/20th Century Masters: The Millennium Collection: The Best of Boyz II Men
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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 20th Century Masters: The Millennium Collection: The Best of Boyz II Men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prodded, then undeleted via WP:REFUND. Still doesn't meet WP:NALBUMS as there are no secondary sources to be found; albums by notable artists aren't inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep "In general, if the musician or ensemble is notable, and if the album in question has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources, then their officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." (WP:NALBUMS) Eauhomme (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You'll have to show where this album has been "mentioned in multiple reliable sources". --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2011 (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) 01:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] - Keep Isn't the Allmusic review alone sufficient to keep the article? I know there's a general bias here at Wiki against "20th Century Masters" compilations, and I know that notability isn't inherited, but as an encylopedia isn't it our duty to inform and isn't it reasonable to assume that a reader interested in a notable band would also be interested to know what tracks are on a compilation? Why force them to go find the information at another source when we have the information right here? WP:IAR allows us to use good judgement here and not stick to the letter of the law. Here's another source. Robman94 (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 01:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Non-notable album, no secondary sources. MoondogCoronation (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the commentary of Robman94 above and IAR. Strikerforce (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This is a release of a notable group on a major label, and it is widely distributed internationally. Allmusic review qualifies as significant independent coverage in reliable source. Onthegogo (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2011 (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.