Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/20th Century Masters: The Millennium Collection: The Best of Scorpions


 * 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. Courcelles 05:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

20th Century Masters: The Millennium Collection: The Best of Scorpions

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Prod declined by a user who has a longterm vendetta against me, who argued WP:LOSE, saying that I was "poking holes" in a discography for no reason. Only source is an Allmusic review. No other sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 05:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing that it is not notable? -- Lord Roem (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. There are no sources that I see; therefore, it's most likely not notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 06:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think declining the PROD was a relevant action and be careful accusing others of having a long-term vendetta against you. Do you have proof of that? You would demand proof if someone made an accusation against you. -- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 20:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - after reviewing it myself, I can confirm the comment above. Nothing to indicate it is notable. -- Lord Roem (talk) 06:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete a best of compilation album is inherantly inherently non-notable beyond a line in the bands discography.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I am in favor of keeping articles for albums that have been noted in AllMusic, because per precedent at WP:ALBUMS this confers notability for an encyclopedia project, and will vote accordingly when someone nominates everything in sight for deletion just for this reason. Also, note that the last voter's comment that a compilation album is "inherantly non-notable" (sic) is completely untrue as anyone with experience around here will know. However I will admit that this Scorpions comp has been received little notice from the rest of the world at large. -- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 20:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're correct, some complilation albums cleary are notable. However, they need to achieve something beyond just existing to be so, which I don't think this qualifies for. If you can't say anything about it beyond a track listing I can't really see the point.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. For a greatest hits compilation to be worthy of an article, I'd look for one of these three things: chart success; direct artist involvement in track selection and/or liner notes; inclusion of previously unreleased material.  Otherwise, not notable.  ReverendWayne (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2010 (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.