Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let Yourself Go: The '70s Albums, Vol. 2: 1974-1977 - The Final 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   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Let Yourself Go: The '70s Albums, Vol. 2: 1974-1977 - The Final Sessions

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Quazi-compilation album (new singer, old songs) that hasn't been released. Searched but didn't find any reliable sources. At this stage, would appear to fail WP:NALBUMS as not sourced or source-able. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This article is still coming together as of this writing; the track-listing has now been added, via a reliable source, and is well on its way of further improvement. I've already pre-ordered my copy off of Amazon.com! Thanks. Best, --Discographer (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply Can you please provide a citation from a reliable source that is talking about the album? One good citation discussing the album in detail, from a main stream publication that isn't selling it and passes WP:RS is all it takes for me to withdraw, happily.  I searched extensively and couldn't find one.  Dennis Brown (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Many of The Supremes compilation albums has no no citation from a reliable source that is talking about the album. Go ahead and delete this article and all those too. Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply Other articles do not matter in this AFD. They may actually be notable, as they have been around a while.  This one doesn't yet exist.  The other Supremes albums also had Diana Ross singing, this one doesn't, and it yet to demonstrate notability.  But you did answer the question, that none exist, so thanks for that.Dennis Brown (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There currently are four other non-Diana Ross Supremes era albums that are linked as articles, so what makes this inferior to those others? Also, judging against the post-Diana Ross Supremes is being biased, as you've stated above in that Diana Ross does not sing on this album. What does it matter who sings lead? By the way, this new album does exists, and it will be available to have in less than one month. Best, --Discographer (talk) 02:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply Please read WP:ATA. The arguments you are making are textbook examples of non-arguments in an AFD.  I know you mean well by it, but they are not reasons to keep an article.  They are reasons to either find citations or send the other articles to AFD.  In particular, the fact that other articles exist without citations is covered in WP:WAX.  Dennis Brown (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's a reference from MTV - Best, --Discographer (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply The link you provided does not list that album. Even if it did, that would only be incidental mention that it exists, not proof of notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, how about this -

Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * http://music.aol.com/album/the-supremes/let-yourself-go-the-70s-albums-vol-2-197/5008359
 * http://theseconddisc.com/2011/04/19/hip-o-select-preps-supremes-final-sessions/
 * One is AOL's incidental mention by listing tracks, the other is a blog. Both fail WP:RS.  Not a problem to have them worked into the article (maybe) if the subject matter was already shown to be notable, but it isn't.  These might demonstrate that it EXISTS, but not that it is notable.  Not trying to be difficult, but if you keep presenting links that don't talk about the album at all, or just show a track listing but don't talk about it, or simply wouldn't be considered a reliable source by anyone's definition, I don't have a choice but to reply.  It exists, that is known.   The problem is that no reliable source seems to know or care, or at least taken the time to write about it.  Maybe they will, and on that day, I would be happy if someone started the article.  Otherwise, to assume it *will be* notable violates WP:CRYSTALBALL.  Seriously, I would be happy to withdraw if I saw a SINGLE solid article on the album for a website or paper that even barely passed WP:RS criteria.  I removed two links already that linked to "buy here" websites (I know you added them in good faith, but those are generally not allowed)  I would suggest creating a subpage on your user page, copy it over, and maybe some day it will be notable.  Maybe.  Dennis Brown (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, when deleting this article, very importantly, be sure to delete EVERY post-1979 Supremes compilation album also, OR this does not get deleted. Easy peasy. Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Bring that up with the closing administrator. I'm just the nominator.  The nominator can't close or delete an article that he nominates.  Prevents abuse.  Of course, Wikipedia doesn't work that way, but you can still bring it to his attention or nominate them yourself.  Dennis Brown (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete Conditionally - It's obvious the only thing tying this to The Supremes are a minor cast of semi-notable associates, so noteworthiness is scarce to none. This article doesn't deserve a "press page", in a sense, because there's obviously very little interest in it outside of those promoting it. Delete for now, remake 1) After it is released and 2) If it has gotten enough independent reviews to actually be considered a notable release in relation to The Supremes. Crtrue —Preceding undated comment added 11:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC).

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 14:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Weak Delete - Though it is the Supremes, the release is just a box set of three relatively unsuccessful albums by the group, and hence really only targeted towards fans. I don't think such a compilation needs an article of its own.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:08, 11 May 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.