Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albums released in 2007


 * 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 and move. Bearian (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Albums released in 2007

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is redundant to Category:2007 albums. There seems to be no precedent for this sort of article. If kept, it should be entitled "List of albums released in 2007." Freekee (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.   -- --  pb30 < talk > 06:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Move it as suggested to List of albums released in 2007. I think there is a use for the list in addition to a category, simply because the list breaks things down chronologically, which the category cannot do.  Lankiveil (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Someone requested that it be 2007 in music, and it was done. –Pomte 13:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete information already in 2007 in music Doc Strange (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Here is the entire discussion regarding this article being split off of the 2007 in music article:
 * I tagged the Albums released section to be split into a new article entitled Albums released in 2007. This is because the page is over 92 kilobytes long, and at 64 kilobytes, that section takes up 2/3 of it.  --Pwnage8 (talk) 03:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * -Freekee (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - information already exists in 2007 in music and the Category for 2007 albums. As an article in itself this is an indiscriminate list as each individual album has nothing in common with any of the others other than it's release year, so we rightly have the category instead. A1octopus (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete redundant.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 13:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Whoever created this article simply copied n pasted the information from the 2007 in music article and left it there, thus creating a duplicate. But that redundancy problem has now been taken care of by me, and is no longer an issue.  I am the one who came up with the idea for this article, and it was for good reason.  The page was too long, most of it being taken up by the albums, to the point that it was affecting the quality and readability of the article.  I echo the sentiments of Lankiveil that there is a place for an article like this, that displays everything chronologically. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment someone also deleted the "List of hits around the world" on the Music in 2007 page, this is on every single other page and should be put back along with the albums released in 2007. I've had problems with the Music in 2007 page as people vandalized it to remove songs by rock acts and replace them with album tracks or upcoming singles by rap groups. Doc Strange (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and move to List of albums released in 2007 per Lankiveil. anemone  │  projectors  19:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The chronological order of unrelated albums has no encyclopedic value whatsoever. (And ideally, if such a list is ever needed, it should be computer generated from the category and the release dates in the infoboxes.) -- Pepve (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I need this information for reference, but since you guys are thinking about deleting it, I'll have to make a copy. I'm sure I'm not the only human being in the world who could use this information. It's just a reference page. Don't delete it. --Donignacio (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This information is useful, and presented in a far more user-friendly manner than the Category page. Suggesting a computer-generated list is absurd due to inherent (if small) discrepancies in markup on wikipedia pages, making screen-scraping difficult; and as far as I know, wikipedia doesn't provide an API for getting regularly formatted data. Frozendevil (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but your ignorance is defeating me. Any CS student should be able create such a tool. (Not by screen scraping, but by parsing the wiki-source.) -- Pepve (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It needs some formatting and citation work, but it's still useful and encyclopedic information, and a better way to organize this information than in a straight category page. I would support the above suggestions to Move this article to List of albums released in 2007.  Weathermandan (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep-Move Needs citing, but well organised. Should however be moved to List of albums released in 2007. Hpfan9374 (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Guys, if you wanna remove it and keep the categories, do it, but can the categories be arranged by date?!! If you wanna move it to List of albums released in 2007, be my guest... But yes, its encyclopedic content to have a list of albums released in a certain year by date... Do what you want to do, but just dont erase it... Maged M. Mahfouz (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Return it to the original page It never should have been divided despite the big size of the page. Notes weren't really necessary in my opinion.--77.105.27.214 (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge with 2007 in music retaining entire content. I came looking for this info, which is the best on the net, and found it was up for deletion - what the hell? Rebecca (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename "List of albums released in 2007."  Lists and categories are not mutually exclusive.  Both are important navigation aids.  The list (or is it a table?) needs expansion, including more notes, and may well become so large that it needs splitting.  Wikipedia incorporates an encyclopedia of released albums, with some threshold of notability required.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:13, 7 January 2008 (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.