Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Now: The Hits of Autumn 2011


 * 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. Consensus against delete, but towards a merge in the future (non-admin closure) — crh 23   &thinsp;(Talk) 16:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Now: The Hits of Autumn 2011

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NALBUM. Binksternet (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Allmusic shows no notability. Fails WP:NALBUM as nom stated CerealKillerYum (talk) 06:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Peaked at No. 4 on ARIA Compilations chart – was in top 10 for nine weeks. Passes WP:NALBUM#2.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Needs sources - chart indicates plausible notability, but we have literally nothing in the way of third-party sources. Did any third parties actually talk about the record at all? - David Gerard (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep was a charting record - justifies notability. Dan arndt (talk) 02:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Now That's What I Call Music! discography. Charting in and of itself does not make an album notable, independent coverage in multiple reliable sources does. This and very few of the individual NOW releases receive this type of coverage. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 16:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is the sort of thing where mere charting doesn't necessarily convey individual article notability (because it is extremely unlikely there will ever be good third-party sources like there would for a single-artist hit single or album) and it should be redirected - David Gerard (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, but not because I think the album is individually notable. There are 34 Australian Now! albums that have their own articles and there is little purpose in knocking that number down to 33.  Or, to say it in a more policy-oriented fashion, there appears to be a community consensus that these articles should exist.  But if these 34 articles were bundled into a single nomination, I'd opt for deleting them all in favor of a single list article.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * All of them can simply be redirected. Note that no new articles have been created since these 2011 versions in the Australian series because they were never any more than a track list and perhaps a chart position, but never any indication that they received any coverage in other sources. Part of the issue was that attempts to redirect these older versions were reverted by IPs not due to any consensus to keep them. I had successfully redirected many of the other NOW articles that were created similarly for releases in France, Germany, and Hungary. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 19:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Definitely something to redirect to an article for the series. Is there any RS coverage talking about any of them? - David Gerard (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable, Starcheer. But saying that something can be redirected is not quite the same as saying that they will be.  Are you proposing to treat this nomination as a test case for every album in the series, so that if the result here is "redirect" then that's what you'll do with all of them?  If so, you'll get no objection from me.  But before throwing in my support, I'd like to hear what the nominator and the other participants think about it.
 * By the way, that redirect target is awfully unwieldy. There are close to 600(!) in-article external links, in addition to some forty actual references.  How about splitting out each series into a separate article, starting with Australia.  I'm thinking of something with the title Now (series of Australian compilation albums).  The information in that list article could appear in the form of a table, which would allow convenient placement of charting information, catalog numbers, year of release, etc.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no reason not to break it up by country - David Gerard (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Most of the references for other countries series just use Amazon or other online retailer as a "source". Not sure if releases in Hungary, for example, are even worth noting if no further info can be found in more reliable sources. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 19:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 01:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A consensus to keep has been established, although whether or not to merge, move, or simply leave as is has not established consensus yet. &mdash; Music1201  talk  23:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment:, – there already exists a list article similar to that you describe, Now That's What I Call Music! discography, except it includes every Now! album released around the world, rather than a separate article for each country's albums. I think a country-specific list article as you suggest would be enough, with release date, chart placing and sales figures where known. I have a lot of sympathy with Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars' argument here, it seems ridiculous to have approaching 100 articles for the UK series that consist of little more than a track listing. If there are references it's usually to the chart placing on the UK Compilations Chart, but this is near pointless as virtually every edition reaches number one – I read somewhere in Music Week that the three annual Now! compilations now account for more than 80% of all compilations sold every year in the UK, which is quite likely since the arrival of MP3s and Spotify have rendered the compilation album obsolete since around 2008 – the Now! albums survive because (a) they contain new material, and (b) I think there's still something of a cachet in having a "complete" Now! collection. Richard3120 (talk) 03:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  23:16, 1 June 2016 (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.