Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ITunes Originals (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. Nja 247 08:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

ITunes Originals
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Originally deleted per Articles for deletion/ITunes Originals; relisted per Deletion_review/Log/2009_April_20. I am personally neutral on these deletions. Aervanath (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete all per the rationales offered at the first AfD, viz: WP:NALBUMS. Eusebeus (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete the lot except the main article original AfD had it right on the money, and it certinally applies to all of them. Itunes originals in it of itself is probabally notable. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 16:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 17:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all except the main article, as I opined on the DRV. Stifle (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all as none have been covered in reliable sources. The main project hasn't been covered in sources even. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 21:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Keep the main iTunes Originals article as it's now reasonably sourced, delete the individual albums for lack of sources.  Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 16:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete all but the main article; NALBUMS is grey about official but one-retailer releases. Mind you, there is no assertion of any other notability for any of the pages. Maybe merge the main article into iTunes Store, but don't delete. Sceptre (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete the lot except for the main article--I'm sticking to my earlier opinion. Drmies (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep – I've started to add some sources to the main article; more to come. As for the others, I'm not sure they can be considered en masse in this way. Some are likely notable and some not. For example, iTunes Originals – Sarah McLachlan was the top-selling digital-only album of 2005 (I've added a reference), despite it being available from only a single retailer. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 03:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'd like to point out that these sources have been added since the previous users have voted, and that the fact that the article was unsourced and now isn't should be given consideration when considering the previous votes. Also The Closing Admin should please note that most of the delete votes indicate "except for the main article" outside the bolding. I believe the last closing admin didn't take this into account, so I hope this admin does. TheHYPO (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Main article, Relist subarticles separately. 'itunes originals' gives 140k hits on yahoo. It seems rediculous to suggest that a) something that does so is unnotable and b) that there isn't likely a legitimate source that can cite this article. It's electronic-only format is NOT a factor (in fact, it potentially is an addition to notability as both one of the earliest electronic-only series of albums, AND one of itunes' earliest exclusive release series - itunes being a significantly notable retailer). As to the individual articles, You can't lump them together and say they are all either significant or not. They should be listed separately. They are all separate works by separate artists. TheHYPO (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Close and relist each album article separately; keep ITunes Originals - The main article is an easy keep with multiple reliable sources showing notability. As others have mentioned, some of the individual album articles are also notable and need to each be discussed separately. For example, iTunes Originals – Sarah McLachlan has a claim to notability and a reliable source to substantiate that claim. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  19:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relist separately Look at the deletion review, it was made perfectly clear by the comments and by the closer that  each album is a separate artists' album that should be relisted and assessed for individual notability (from the close, by TheHypo. Aervanath, if you're doing it as a technical relisting, you might want to redo this. DGG (talk) 02:53, 28 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. (same opinion as before)  Them From  Space  05:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been finding some sources, though. For example, I just added an article from The Denver Post that does discuss PJ Harvey's album. And I've found several that discuss iTunes Originals – Ulfuls, which, ironically, is currently a red link. I think there's sufficient evidence that these album need to be considered individually. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 16:32, 28 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.