Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Never Stop Doing What You Love


 * 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 Keep. SynergeticMaggot 00:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Never Stop Doing What You Love
Non-notable compilation album, no new songs. kingboyk 15:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * CommentI don't know much about Paul McCartney, but I do know that he is very famous. Shouldn't his albums then be notable?--Edtalk c E  15:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nah, this is a private compilation. Delete of course. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I kind of think Keep actually. Although not a commercially released compilation, it was widely distributed as a freebie. Of sufficient interest. That said, the article should be put in proper format. Ac@osr 17:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Got multiple non-trivial published sources about this thing, irrespective of how widely distriobuted? - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, Merge to Fidelity Investments. Info belongs there - new marketing method - newspaper article about innovative efforts in marking financial services to baby boomers - but as an article about the release itself, it's valueless. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to Fidelity Investments per Crzrussian. ++Lar: t/c 18:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If somebody wants to be bold and merge it, I'm happy to withdraw the AFD. Too busy assessing articles for WP:BEATLES to do it myself though. (Sigh). --kingboyk 18:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll do it. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well that's that then. Change to speedy close once merged since nominator withdraws the nom. ++Lar: t/c 18:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and Strong disagree with the proposed merging. The compilation is a Beatles/McCartney collector item, more relevant to Beatles and McCartney collectors than it is to Fidelity Investments. The page had previously been linked by Paul McCartney and Paul McCartney discography, but not by Fidelity Investments. People following the compilations link from the discography article will be understandibly jarred and confused by the redirect to Fidelity, as the entry in the discography list makes no mention of Fidelity's involvement. I believe the article should be kept as is. It includes a track listing which will be of interest to collectors, yet a merge with Fidelity that includes the track listing will be beyond the scope of that particular article. I also believe the innovative marketing section added during this discussion's temporary closure ought to be retained at the Fidelity article. Thanks to CrazyRussian for reopening this discussion for me (I was in the middle of typing when it was closed). I hope this makes sense to you all. Rohirok 19:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The discography could make mention of Fidelity in the entry for this, that seems an easily overcomeable objection, but it is not the crux if I understand you. The merge has been done, right? I think we need a case made that this is notable in its own right for folk to change their minds about this merge being a good idea. DO we have any significant media references to this? That usually seals the deal. ++Lar: t/c 19:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The ad campaign is documented in a Slate column, though it makes no mention of the associated compilation CD. The CD itself is briefly discussed by the campaign's main creator in an advertising industry publication. I think people have resisted the notion that this compilation deserves its own article within the McCartney discography because it is little more than a lame advertising gimmick (hence the merge with Fidelity). And they're right, of course--the CD is part of a sad, synergistic sales strategy. But it is also now a highly sought-after fan collectible, mentioned on Beatles/McCartney fansites  and sold online at a greatly inflated price. It thus has significance beyond its use as a marketing freebie. The people who will be most interested in this information won't be the ones reading Fidelity's article--they'll be the fans and collectors interested in McCartney and the albums and compilations which he's had a hand in producing. What began as a marketing trinket has become a fan collectible, and is more notable as such. That's why I think the disk deserves its own article in the McCartney discography, complete with track listing. Rohirok 21:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Based on the arguments and sources given above (please get some of this content to the article ASAP though, including evidence of collectability) I have changed my thinking, I now think that the article should be unmerged and think Keep is the right outcome. ++Lar: t/c 21:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added some references and an external link. One of the links (Boston Globe) I couldn't get into proper reference format, for some reason. The web address kept appearing as a hyperlink, so I just put it in there without a link title. If I had time right now, I'd rewrite this and perhaps expand it using the new sources. Anyway, I think there's something to work with here, and will revisit it tomorrow, if it hasn't been deleted. Rohirok 23:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, thanks to those above for the research and improvements (with "those above," I'm speaking of my fellow editors, not the divine) -MrFizyx 13:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, don't merge. Seems interesting and well-sourced. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per all above keep voters--Edtalk c E  13:05, 18 August 2006 (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.