Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call Music! 36 (U.S. series)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) C T J F 8 3  chat 05:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Now That's What I Call Music! 36 (U.S. series)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unreleased compilation album fails WP:GNG. Snotty Wong  confabulate 18:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are over 200 extant articles for albums in this series (counting all countries involved).  That distinguishes this from a normal crystal ball album article.  There's no reason to expect that it won't be released, that we won't reference it, and that we won't have an article for it just like all the others.  And, further, the release date is less than two weeks after the scheduled close of this AFD.  I do not see the gain to the project from at best 10 days of largely procedural deletion.  Serpent&#39;s Choice (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL wasn't my main problem with the article (although I believe it certainly is relevant). The problem is that there is no significant coverage by independent sources, as required by WP:GNG.  I think it would definitely be CRYSTAL if your rationale to keep the article is based on the notion that "it's going to chart" or that "it's going to get a lot of reviews".  There is no reason (apart from promotion) to create an article on an album which hasn't been released, and which has no coverage in independent sources.  Snotty Wong   confabulate 18:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm not trying to dispute that the article, as it stands, doesn't meet the coverage requirements. Rather, I guess I'm saying that given the timeframe involved, it's not worth worrying about.  Let's say we delete this.  Two weeks later, give or take a couple of days, someone will recreate exactly the same thing, plus a blurb from Allmusic and a Billboard ranking box, just as almost every article in this series has (whether that should be sufficient is a broader question for another place).  Is it crystal balling to expect that?  For a random upcoming album by a random band, certainly.  For the ~200th of these series albums?  It would seem not.  Is having the page deleted for 10 or 12 days in compliance with the letter of the notability policy?  Certainly.  Is it constructive to do so?  I can't see why it would be.  Serpent&#39;s Choice (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Although an extension of the requirements of WP:NALBUMS, since this series is the most notable of all compilation albums, it should follow that individual albums within that series are notable. However, I am not against a redirect of many of the Now album articles for those that are nothing more than track lists. I'd prefer a redirect over delete here. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  --  Marcus   Qwertyus   22:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per practice of having articles about every album in this extremely successful series of compilation albums. That being said, because they are compilation albums, they don't get a lot of reviews -- they just get a lot of sales. If, rather than having articles about each individual album, there was a single article with a table listing the release date and chart performance of each album in the U.S. series, I could understand redirecting the individual album articles to that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Good grief, its coming out in a couple weeks. What is the point of deleting an article that will be recreated in a couple of weeks? --Mjrmtg (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the point in creating an article before there is substantial coverage of its subject? I fully understand your argument that it's probably going to receive coverage shortly, but I disagree that we should temporarily ignore policies for this reason.  Snotty Wong   chat 22:03, 22 October 2010 (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.