Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hitmixes (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. I can't make any consensus out of this discussion on whether the articles meet the notability guideline or not. There are some weak arguments made by some contributors, but after giving them less weight I cannot say either argument has a consensus here. As such no consensus can be the only outcome. Davewild (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hitmixes
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable per WP:NALBUM -- Cprice1000 talk2me  05:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC) There are 5 sources, 3 of which aren't even from this country. -- Cprice1000 talk2me  01:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support-This article does not give basically any info that you can't get for the discography...it just simply does not have enough information--Blackjacks101 (talk) 04:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral Notable in Canada, has credits and plenty of sources, but if this were something like The Cherrytree Sessions I would commetn otherwhise. Tbhotch ™ © Happy New Year 04:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Tb, I think we would be stretching if we say plenty of sources. We might say that plenty of sources indicate that it exists, however do any of them establish its notability? Something to think about. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 05:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Unsure – It isn't very notable, but I'm not sure if I'd support it's deletion. ΣПDiПG – STΛЯT  04:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete First of all, I was surprised that the article only had a big tracklist, an infobox and two lines saying that it charted in Canada. The lines being already present in Lady Gaga discography. Then I had waited thinking that some information might come up, like The Cherrytree Sessions. Well, ultimately nothing has come up after a long wait, and now if its nominated for deletion, so be it. If notability can't be established, then its a waste of article space. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 05:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * NOTE Look at WP:NALBUM. It mentions that something little more than a track listing is not notable. -- Cprice1000 talk2me  05:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just like, which is heading for a keep consensus on the grounds that it has cover art, a date, and a track list? &#9786;  It is amusing to see two mutually contradictory discussions right next to each other. Uncle G (talk) 05:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But the main difference is that NMI is a future album unlike Hitmixes, which was released a year ago. Tbhotch ™ © Happy New Year 05:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So we keep the albums that haven't been released yet and delete them when they've been around for a bit, then? I'm fairly sure that that isn't a criterion upon which a keep/delete consensus should be based.  &#9786;  Both articles are very similar  (infobox, picture, small amount of prose, tracklisting, dates, sources), and both sets of editors are saying "per WP:NALBUM", I observe.  Uncle G (talk) 06:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. -- Cprice1000 talk2me  16:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Other stuff may exist, however when you have a similar situation, the merits of comments in one discussion are also true for the other. Grk1011 (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, that album 'No More Idols', is upcoming, while this album has been around for over a year, and has yet to rise above notability. Also note that the result was not about notability, but about why it should be kept so it can develope. -- Cprice1000 talk2me  00:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not only is this your second "delete" (as your nom above should be the only one that you have), but your reasoning is flawed. Nowhere does NALBUMS say that articles with a track listing are not notable, it says they may be more appropriately merged into a discography space permitting. However, in the sentence before that, it says they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. We have independent coverage and from what I'm seeing in this discussion, there is more coverage than you thought or at least cared to find. Grk1011 (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's irrelevant which country the sources are from... Mhiji (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I though we were supposed to add something else. Oops! XD I'll just change this to a note, then. -- Cprice1000 talk2me  01:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. As it's such a major artist and was a top 10 hit in Canada, 'notability' can't seriously be questioned. So it's a short article - not really a problem.--Michig (talk) 07:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Articles that are little more than a track listing should be deleted or merged. -- Cprice1000 talk2me  00:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What about the charts, the personnel, the review provided below waiting for addition? This article has the potential to be much more than a track listing. People here have stated that they tried to expand the article for some time now, but haven't been able to. How can you say this when some flyby editor found a review so quickly? Grk1011 (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As stated before, charts count for little, it means it should have actual content. Also, a bunch of Canadian reviews from some newspapers are hardly notable reviews, also already stated. -- Cprice1000 talk2me  01:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete While its existence is notable, all we have to write about is its track listing, credits, and charting in Canada. I have struggled to find any reviews; if there were any maybe I could change my opinion. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral Seeing that it has received a review, I'm not really inclined either way. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is sourced, has a tracklisting, cover art etc etc. It's charted on a national chart. Also, it's by one of the most notable artists in the world. I can't see how this wouldn't be notable?! Mhiji (talk) 10:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you not read WP:NALBUM? It clearly states that little more than a track list, no matter who the artist be, is not notable. -- Cprice1000 talk2me  16:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It actually states "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting", which is completely different to what you claim it says.--Michig (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * See space permitting. If it was some small artist with one not notable album, that's what would be done. -- Cprice1000 talk2me  16:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That sentence means merge if the parent article isn't too big, otherwise leave it as a standalone article. It isn't suggesting deleting encyclopedic material just because the parent article is already large.--Michig (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've read every word of it. Per Michig, it doesn't say that. If you are going to quote the guidelines, please do so directly, rather than your interpretation of them. Mhiji (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see how someone could think that this is not notable. It was officially released and charted, and well at that. If it was by a less notable artist I could be persuaded otherwise, but a release by someone so notable and prominent in today's music industry?. This seems like another case of an article that could be expanded, but no one seems to be willing to do it, at least right now. Grk1011 (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * People have been trying to expand it for over a year. If it hasn't happened yet, it obviously cannot be expanded. --<span style="font-family:'tahoma bold',serif;border:1px solid Black;"> Cprice1000 talk2me  16:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – In addition to above, it can be expanded to include album reviews in Canadian newspapers, such as (August 25, 2009) "Best Dance: Lady Gaga: Hitmixes", Calgary Herald, p. E2. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 17:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Those reviews aren't very notable either. Maybe one can be added, but I don't think the others will work. --<span style="font-family:'tahoma bold',serif;border:1px solid Black;"> Cprice1000 talk2me  00:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is an official physical release by a major artist that charted. Just the fact that it charted on a major chart should be enough. It could be expanded per suggestion above. Just because it has been around for a year in this condition doesn't mean it cannot. Greekboy (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NALBUM and for all reasons in the delete votes before this one. The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 23:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * NOTE Seems that most of those in favor of keep have just given opinions, while those who wish it to be deleted have shown why it should be deleted according to notability policies. --<span style="font-family:'tahoma bold',serif;border:1px solid Black;"> Cprice1000 talk2me  00:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Umm... It seems to me that most of the keep votes are saying why it should be kept because of the various ways that it passes the notability criteria, including having charted, having coverage in third party reliable sources, and the list continues. Your and others' opinions are that it doesn't pass, while the keep people's opinion is that it does. I don't know what you are trying to accomplish with this comment. The closing admin certainly can read through the responses and weigh the merits of each side. Grk1011 (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that this is not a song and it does not matter if it charted or not. It only mentions that most songs that have charted rise above notability guidlines, not albums. --<span style="font-family:'tahoma bold',serif;border:1px solid Black;"> Cprice1000 talk2me  00:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if the comments above have "per WP:NALBUM" (or something similar) after them... We all know here that that is the guideline which we are all referring to (both those in favour of keeping and those in favour of deleting). Mhiji (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - May be slim on content, but meets WP:NALBUMS. Candy  o32  - Merry CHRISTmas :)  02:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How? --<span style="font-family:'tahoma bold',serif;border:1px solid Black;"> Cprice1000 talk2me  02:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete – per Adabow's first comment.  Novice7  |  Talk  03:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep – From what others have said on the issue, I am convinced that this article should stay. As Candy said, it does meet the guidelines. It's notable. It's by a very notable artist. All it needs is someone to take the time to expand on it. ΣПDiПG – STΛЯT  04:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If really notable reviews are found then it may be worth considering, but waiting so long, and my personal research also reutrned nothing substantial for teh article. Has anybody found anything concrete about the article anywhere? Printed sources would do too. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 06:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The New York and LA Times are the two most widely circulated newspapers in the US, that is distributed across the nation, not a local paper with about 1,000 readers. --<span style="font-family:'tahoma bold',serif;border:1px solid Black;"> Cprice1000 talk2me  21:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - I know the specs of this release really well. It was generated by Gaga's labels (Interscope and it's affiliates Cherrytree/Streamline/Kon Live), however those labels didn't actually release it in their own territory (the US). Instead it was only picked up by one Universal Music Group company, and that was Universal Music Canada. Some sources say that it was exclusive to one retailer HMV, and that would make sense since I don't see it in the databases of any other major Canadian retailers. Also it was a one-shot deal, so now that stocks have depleted it's most definitely discontinued. In hindsight, it's nothing more than a typical promotional remix disc for radio/DJs, which incidentally went a step further by getting a one-shot promo release deal through a single retailer, HMV. So exactly how notable is this release in Gaga's discography? The fact that it got this much attention is because it's a physical release, when in fact, dozens of market-unique remix 'EPs' are made available via iTunes regularly, including ones related to Gaga (not surprising as her music is in the dance domain anyway). As for the prospects of expansion, they're undoubtedly very slim. I have tried myself to expand the page, in fact I think I may have added the charting section after I searched for charting info. My concern is more with calling this release her second 'EP', and The Fame Monster her third proceeding this, as this can't possibly be an absolute chronology. There's definitely other digital-format EP releases out there, possibly on different online stores in different national markets. But this is a greater issue concerning the current state of Gaga's discographic wiki pages. Imperatore (talk) 07:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * weak delete I concur with most of the comments previously made. Although several reliable sources indicate its existence, the sources do not help establish its notability. Independent articles should only be created where there is sufficient information to create a detailed article. As of present, there is not. The information could be summarized into several sentences (negative the track listing) and hence the article serves little purpose. I agree that the collection did chart but it was only in one territory. --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk]  20:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * They sell it at Chapters, too. Yves (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Where's the background information of the release? The different reviews and the chart performance? Any singles released or promotion? No. Xwomanizerx (talk) 03:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Agreed with Xwomanizerx. No promotion, only remixes of previously heard songs, article is a stub and does not seem to pass WP:NALBUM, simply charting in one country isnt significant coverage. - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 22:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It entered in the top ten in Canada, it's enough for it to have an article.  ×º°”˜ `”°º× ηυηzια  ×º°”˜ `”°º×  22:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * *sigh* You have obviously either failed to thoroughly read WP:NALBUM or you just feel it should be kept because it's a Lady GaGa article. --<span style="font-family:'tahoma bold',serif;border:1px solid Black;"> Cprice1000 talk2me  23:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * From that one sentence how have you decided that Merynancy has not read WP:NALBUM? Or that she wants it to be kept because it's a Lady Gaga article?! Merynancy didn't say anything like that; if she had thought that I'm sure she would have written it. Please respond constructively to the arguments put forward by editors, rather than what you think they might have thought... Mhiji (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Because if you read WP:NALBUM, you would see that an album charting is irrelevant to an album's notability. --<span style="font-family:'tahoma bold',serif;border:1px solid Black;"> Cprice1000 talk2me  00:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say that. The only line at WP:NALBUM which I can see that is relevant here as to whether we keep or delete this article is the line "In general, if the musician or ensemble is notable, and if the album in question has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources, then their officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." The musician is notable (I'm sure we all agree with that). The album has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources (see Hitmixes). It is an officially released album. Therefore the album "may have sufficient notability" to have an individual article. The guideline says it "may have sufficient notability". With albums there is no fixed criteria as to whether an album should have an article or not, we primarily use the sentence that I have just quoted to see if the album "may have sufficient notability" (which it does) and then we look at the merits of each album on a case-by-case basis to establish whether it is notable or not (If it doesn't meet the criteria that it "may have sufficient notability", then the article should be deleted, otherwise it may be notable). So please stop saying that other arguments about whether it is notable aren't relevant because they are not mentioned at WP:NALBUM. Facts such as that the album has charted on a national chart are significant - if an album has charted at number 1 in 20 countries around the world it will definitely be notable. If it has not charted anywhere, it is less likely to be notable. The fact that it has charted in (at least) one country is definitely an argument as to it's notability. Mhiji (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cprice1000, I don't change idea about my vote. I'm not a fanatic of Lady Gaga, but I think this article should be kept. I know it's irrilevant, but why do other 8 wikipedias have it? On the wikipedia in english we keep articles like Christina Milian's fourth album, about albums that will probably never be released, i really don't see why we can't keep this. And it doesn't fail WP:NALBUM.  ×º°”˜ `”°º× ηυηzια  ×º°”˜ `”°º×  18:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article is in better shape now than when it was first nominated, which the nominator should acknowledge. Also, a guideline from WP:NALBUMS has been misquoted a whole bunch of times in this debate. The sentence in question: Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting. does NOT say that an article with little more than a tracklist should be deleted because the album is not notable. Also, this article is now more than a tracklist thanks to the work done as a result of this debate. -- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 17:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? A sorry critical reception section (though it is beautifully written) with nothing but a Canadian reviw, which is not notable anyway, is hardly an improvement. Still little more than a track list, considering charts don't effect notability. --<span style="font-family:'tahoma bold',serif;border:1px solid Black;"> Cprice1000 talk2me  18:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Are going to comment all the keep votes?  ×º°”˜ `”°º× ηυηzια  ×º°”˜ `”°º×  18:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you think the Calgary Herald is not notable. In case you are not aware, Calgary is one of the biggest cities in Canada, the country of this release. Yves (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not so not notable to where it can't stay in the article, but it's not exactly a review that should effect a page's overall notability much. Also, Calgary Herald is also just a newspaper, not even a magazine or critic's website. It has little to do with music. --<span style="font-family:'tahoma bold',serif;border:1px solid Black;"> Cprice1000 talk2me  20:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So you're saying if a review came from The New York Times or the Los Angeles Times, it would be less notable than, say, one from PopMatters? Yves (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering the fact that it was only released in Canada, we should only expect there to be reviews from Canadian media. The issue here seems to be that people are viewing this album in the same way they would a worldwide release when in reality it is only specific to one country. The album does not need to be universally notable, just notable in its target market where in this case it was. Grk1011 (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * & You're talking like the United States are the centre of the world. Canada, as all the other nations, is as important as the US are.  ×º°”˜ `”°º× ηυηzια  ×º°”˜ `”°º×  22:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As a citizen of Canada I can agree with Cprice saying that the Calgary Herald isn't that notable, our most notable newspapers are the Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail, National Post etc....again I am saying this as a citizen who is not biased towards any other country except Canada--Blackjacks101 (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2011 (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.