Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Time Greatest Hits (Lynyrd Skynyrd album)


 * 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 per WP:SNOW -- JForget  01:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

All Time Greatest Hits (Lynyrd Skynyrd album)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable list of songs. No references and no info about it. Macy (Review me!) 00:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Cleanup. It's a legitimate album (see ), and indeed the Discography section at Lynyrd Skynyrd links to it... but at the moment is a contextless list. Needs the appropriate templates, categories, etc., etc. -- Kinu t /c  00:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and Cleanup. This is an album of Lynyrd Skynyrd. I don't think it should be deleted. I think it should get some more information put on it so people will know more information about this album. --Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Major-label compilation album by a notable artist. I've added a bit to the article (like, say, the album cover). Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.   --  Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete . Original studio albums by major-label artists are always definite keeps, but I see no reason to have articles on the virtually identical "greatest hits" repackagings that come out every couple of years.  They number in the dozens for some artists, are all virtually interchangable, rarely chart on the Billboard top 200, and are just record company product with no new material. KleenupKrew (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Even with two three perfectly valid reviews cited in the infobox? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the Discography section, this particular compliation went Platinum... if that can be verified, that seems to put a wrench in that line of reasoning. -- Kinu t /c  04:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If it went platinum I would say keep, but I have a hard time believing a compilation released in 2000 of a 1970s band did so. Looking at Amazon I see different compilations from this band released in 1990, 1998, 1999, 2000 (2 different ones), 2002 (2 different ones), 2003, 2006, and 2007.  All interchangable product.  But if one of them somehow went platinum and it can be verified, so be it, keep the article. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per TPH. KTC (talk) 06:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per TPH and this link, which seems to indicate that the album has gone platinum. Maxamegalon2000 06:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Very strong keep - Per Xxhopingtears and TenPoundHammer.  a s e nine  say what?  06:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per everyone, noting that the record did go Platinum and charted on the Billboard's Top Pop Catalog chart Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 16:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The professional review at AMG does it for me.--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per notability, TenPound Hammer, verifiability, and maybe even SNOW. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:SNOW in this case. Even I'm convinced. KleenupKrew (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That makes at least two we've agreed on in the past couple of days! I'm happy to see that.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:24, 13 May 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.