Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chillout Sessions


 * 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   Merge all the subarticles into one. Stifle (talk) 12:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Chillout Sessions

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

This is a collection of track listings from compilation albums. This kind of content does not seem suited for an encyclopedia. Specifically, it doesn't meet the notability criteria set out at WP:NALBUMS - secondary sources seem to be missing. Flagged for notability concerns since May 2008. B. Wolterding (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following articles with track listings:



--B. Wolterding (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Turn Into Template. Could be turned into a template like this and then put at the bottom of the Ministry of Sound article. Top  Gear  Freak  14:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Does this solve the problem? The articles listed above do not meet the notability criteria, so they should be removed. A template listing them does not make sense in that case. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but Merge. This article states "the Ministry of Sound's Chillout sessions, one of the most successful dance-music albums of all time". Other Google news results include this review, and this. This is a notable and very popular series of compilations. Articles with only tracklistings can be merged to a main article.--Michig (talk) 22:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Is wikipedia the place for tracklistings? Personally, I don't think so. Discogs does this very well already, why replicate it when most people into this kind of music go directly to Discogs? Semitransgenic (talk) 13:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep but Merge. I agree with the above user; track listings are useful here, and use precious few bits of storage.  I for one have never even been to Discogs, but if i like a single from an artist, and want to know more about the history of the musicians, compilations, etc, I prefer the cross-referencing possibilities available from Wikipedia and would like to be able to see the tracks on the albums put out by particular singers.  While collections seem less notable, in fact for a lot of listeners, myself included, this is how we approach a lot of electronica and it provides a useful branching point (Niall)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.180.110.186 (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep with merge - The afd issue is about notability, not about the desirability of track listings. If it's a series of CDs it's notable because it's a very popular series, not so much because any one CD is notable. If they're merged into one it's not only a cleaner interface but it's more consistent. LH (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep (or Merge all into Chillout Sessions) Wikipedia is the place for encyclopaedic articles and this means they will include track listings at the very least. A good article would be worse without them. Discogs may well be good at track listings, but that does not stop us from having them as well. This review and this article in addition to those found by Michig suggests that Chillout Sessions as a whole are notable, so would be happy to have one article for all the albums in the range. Suicidalhamster (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2009 (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.