Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fastest selling albums worldwide


 * 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 all. T. Canens (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

List of fastest selling albums worldwide

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Sources do not verify that the albums were "fastest selling", just that they were certified to a degree. Possible copypaste or hoax job; the "worldwide" article was created in April with dead link templates dating from October 2010. Deprodded without comment. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  —  D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 14:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  —  D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 14:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete All - In addition to Mr. Hammer's concerns about the sources, also consider guidelines #1 and #7 at WP:DIRECTORY. The people behind the articles, especially the "Worldwide" article, put in a lot of work but provided no evidence that an album's first-week sales figure is a matter of encylopedic notability. An album's all-time sales figure is a matter of interest, but these articles make no case for seeing first-week sales the same way. That figure is industry trivia, at best. -- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 14:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep US and UK and merge. Worldwide... not as much. I have issues with the way the worldwide list is tabulated and am skeptical of the accuracy of worldwide figures. As for domestic lists, they are as relevant as, say, List of biggest opening weekends which I don't see anyone asking to be deleted.--Musicbuff3643 (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep why? You didn't give a reason. Did you miss the part about "the sources don't even verify the content"? That's kind of a red flag. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 12:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I take it you're referring to the worldwide list? I did not vote to keep that one. As for the domestic lists they are sourced to the teeth. "The sources don't even verify the content": I'm not entirely sure if you're disagreeing with the semantics of the article names, in that case renaming to something akin to List of largest single week album sales would be more encyclopedic. I really fail to see how this violates the Wikipedia directory guidelines of "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" or "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations" when their is neither anything loosely associated nor cross categorized. I feel calling the pages trivia is subjective as major publications like Billboard exist whose sole function is to track and report information like this. --Musicbuff3643 (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:DIRECTORY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N5iln (talk • contribs)
 * Keep this looks like a standard Wikipedia article and the references look ok to me,. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)
 * Tell me how the references are "ok" when all they verify is that the album was certified and nothing else. None of the sources provide any information whatsoever about album x selling faster than album y. But you don't care; you're the most rabid inclusionist this side of Kurt Weber. I could type an article consisting entirely of the word "parakeet" 400 times with a source to my own blog, and you'd say "keep, it looks fine, it's useful". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I should point all of the sources are for sales. Sales and certifications are two completely different things, and there is no other benchmark for calling something "fastest selling" than sales in a fixed period of time. It seems like your entire argument is for a renaming, not a deletion. Also I have no idea if anyone is mentioning the worldwide article or the domestic ones, which IMHO shouldn't be clumped into one AFD. --Musicbuff3643 (talk) 04:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:N5iln and User:Doomsdayer520. Half of of the sources are dead; this article is largely unnecessary. —  Gabe 19  ( talk contribs) 01:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and discuss retitling the US & UK articles per Musicbuff3643's points. I don't see anything inherently wrong with the subject; here is an article in today's New York Times discussing the significance of fast sales of Lady Gaga's new opus.  As Musicbuff3643 says, the US and UK articles appear to be well-sourced and cover a notable subject. I'm neutral on the worldwide article given the concerns about comparing different markets. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. reasonably encyclopedic. correct dead sources. Jewishprincess (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This account has 50 edits. Neutralitytalk 23:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fastest selling over what time period? No consistent sources for this - not sufficiently encyclopedic. Neutralitytalk 23:40, 5 June 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.