Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ITunes Originals


 * 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. per NALBUMS; as was pointed out below, exclusivity actually makes them less notable. There may be a rationale for including them as a one-line mention in the artist's own articles, but that's it. Black Kite 15:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

ITunes Originals

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

Non-notable iTunes exclusive releases. No non-trivial coverage for any of these albums, which are only digital "albums" anyway. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all of the articles except for ITunes Originals. I don't see any point in separate articles for the ITunes offerings on separate artists, but I'd keep the headline article. Mandsford (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What point do you see in the headline article? There're no sources for the series as a whole. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep; iTunes Originals is a series of albums by many famous artists; it is an original concept in that it is exclusive to itunes, and it compiles album tracks with live performance and interview in a sort of anthology. It is notable as one of the first, if not the first, series of items created exclusively for itunes music stores: a very notable retailer. One of their most notable series of exclusive releases is notable. "itunes originals" gives me 175,000 yahoo hits; I'm sure there's some viable sources in that group; just because an article is not sourced does not mean it's not notable. It just means it needs improvement since sources may be available. Simliarly, I don't see the argument re: individual articles whereas any other album by those artists aren't given a second look in terms of notability, this is, in my view, another album by those artists; even though it's not a physical release. It is entirely possible that like any album, specific artists'  itunes originals may not be notable for them, and that should be looked at in an article by article basis, not en-masse. TheHYPO (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge all to iTunes originals since the individual songs haven't been discussed in third-party sources, which is required by WP:N.  Them From  Space  19:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete the lot, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. A passing mention on each of the artists parent article is all that is required, if that. No notability for a stand alone article on each and every one of these releases.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 21:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep all. All artists notable. Under notability guideline these shouldn't be deleted, if not notable enough content should be merged to individual discographies. Since virtually all other albums by artists have individual pages, merging content would malform discographies. Odds are sources can be found for each of these anyway, and notability guidelines indicate albums by notable artists are generally notable. Procedural speedy close for individual pages since nominator didn't put AFD notices on their pages.  Appears to be sufficient coverage of general iTunes project. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Keeping them is not an option--these collections themselves are entirely unnotable, even if the artists are notable. Delete the lot, and continue the list in the main article, which I think is notable enough. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all: trivial coverage for non-notable releases. JamesBurns (talk) 04:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge/weak keep the way I read NALBUM, as these are officially released (digitally, but still officially released), they are notable. However, I think a merge would be more appropriate as a matter of consolidation of data. Sceptre (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all - entirely unnotable releases, no significant coverage. A-Kartoffel (talk) 05:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep all and renominate individually so that they can be appropriately judged on an article by article basis. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  00:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete all, since these Internet-only releases fails WP:NALBUMS. A series of non-notable digital releases, which anyone have references or third-part reliable sources to comprove their notability; yeah, because existence don't prove notability.  C  anniba loki  07:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep all per TheHYPO and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. TenPoundHammer, "There're no sources" does not translate to non-notable, it just means they haven't been well-sourced YET. I believe many of these albums can be well-sourced - rst20xx (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all (including the parent article). That they aren't physical releases is irrelevant. The series fails WP:NALBUMS for a number of reasons including the fact that there's nothing special about any of them. Exclusivity to one seller actually reduces the likelihood of the album being notable (an exception being if, for some reason, the release garnered substantial media coverage). The individual albums fail notability as does the series as a whole. TheJazzDalek (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Rst20xx, if they cannot be well sourced now, then the article should be deleted in accordance with Policy until they can be well sourced. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I was trying to say that I believe they can be well-sourced now, it's just that no-one's bothered to do it yet - rst20xx (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all, exclusivity to one vendor means none of these albums can actually be considered as officially charting (see WP:BADALBUMS). No charts, no awards, scant 3rd party sources = non notable. TheClashFan (talk) 11:02, 9 April 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.