Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Tribute to Metallica: Metallic Assault


 * 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 without prejudice to recreation if reliable sources can be found to prove notability.  BLACK KITE  19:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

A Tribute to Metallica: Metallic Assault

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable tribute album. Tribute albums are not automatically notable, and I can't see any sources or reasons why this one could be considered so. J Milburn (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If this is deleted, then so should lots of other album articles. Also, as far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong) this is the only notable tribute album to metallica. Perhaps I should add some more sources (although help is welcome!!!), but with GCSEs to do its difficult to keep up with wiki & school. Also, see Numbers from the Beast for a similar article, no sources etc, but this is not up for deletion (or wasn't last time I looked). George bennett (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I can only nominate articles for deletion if I come across them- in any case, this discussion is about this album, not any other. If you think other album articles should be deleted, you are welcome to nominate them, but I will take a look at the article you linked to for you. As for this being the only notable tribute- what are you basing that upon? I can see no reliable sources about it, or any reason that it passes the relevant guidelines. J Milburn (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The whole point is i DON'T want this article to be deleted, hence why I am using a similar example to highlight why it should not be. I'm a definite keep for this article, in fact, you seem to be the only person who has come across this article and said it should be deleted (see the page's edit history). Any chance of a consensus?George bennett (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am aware you don't want it deleted, I am just pointing out that the fact that there are other, similar articles is irrelevent when we are discussing this article. J Milburn (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as a non-notable album, there's a lot of compilations like this. -RiverHockey (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to get some sources for this, but when I googled it it only came up with how to buy it. In response to the 'barely sold a single copy', with the overall high caliber of artists on this I'm fairly sure it sold a fair few copies, although googling again gave me no joy on this subject. George bennett (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Generally, albums by notable artists are notable themselves. Notwithstanding a couple redlinks and some mis-directed bluelinks, this album seems to have several notable acts on it. Tribute album or not, I would say that it probably contains enough notable performers to warrant being kept.  Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not All Music Guide. This album was released on a major label with some notable musicians, but never won any awards and doesn't seem to have charted in any meaningful way. -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is no requirement under WP:MUSIC for albums to have won awards or to have charted in order to be notable. Rather, it says, "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." Numerous players on this album are notable. WP:MUSIC goes on, "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article, space permitting." As an album with multiple different contributors, there's an argument that it makes more sense to have it on its own page rather than on any particular artist's page. I'd also draw attention to the phrase "space permitting" -- I think the lack of space is a good reason not to merge this into Metallica. This article is rather stub-y and does need some citations, but let's not prematurely delete it. Bondegezou (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I am afraid you are mistaken. The guideline you cite (which, coincidentially, I have and will defend passionately) refers to studio albums by a single artist- compilation albums are not automatically considered notable, and must prove their own notability, through reliable sources. There are no reliable sources about this album, as far as I can see, and so it should go. Are you proposing that every compilation album ever released containing a notable artist is notable? That would probably make every compilation album every released by a professional record label notable, even though many of them will have barely sold a single copy. J Milburn (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is exactly my point. We can find no reliable sources, and so we have no reason to believe that it is notable. Also, your assertion that you're 'fairly sure' it sold a few copies, because of the 'high caliber' of the artists, counts for nothing. I'm 'fairly sure' that if it had sold many copies, someone somewhere would have written about it- ezines would have reviews, album databases would have detailed entries and so on. No sources = no notability. J Milburn (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2007 (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.