Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call Music! 51 (UK 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 redirect to Now That's What I Call Music! discography.  MBisanz  talk 02:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Now That's What I Call Music! 51 (UK series)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is no more notable than the next album in the series, which was redirected as the result of Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call Music! 52 (UK series). Peter James (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 3.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 21:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  J  947  (contribs · mail) 22:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  J  947  (contribs · mail) 22:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.  J  947  (contribs · mail) 22:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  J  947  (contribs · mail) 22:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Is this a veiled attempt to delete the entire category tree below Category:Now That's What I Call Music! albums? That's several hundred albums, internationally.
 * I can see zero justification for deleting #52, then #51 (and then #50) as some sort of iterative deletion. If #2 was notable, then so is #51 (the external RS attention paid to them is no different). Also why has #52 (UK) been deleted, but #52 (US) untouched?
 * I'm happy to delete the entire category (all countries), leaving merely the lead article (per NOTDIR and I have no interest in this as a topic). But piecemeal removal of some articles is ridiculous and deleting the whole lot one by one even more so. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with Andy. Also, the argument seems to be for redirect which is not what AFD is for. They should all be redirected though, just not debated one at a time. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 15:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect the lot to the main article – I think I gave my opinion on the AfD for Now! 52, either keep them all or redirect them all, because none are more notable than the others. Richard3120 (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect this one at the very least--I suspect all of the others could be similarly redirected. No doubt that the series as a whole is notable, but this particular iteration is not, as it fails WP:NALBUM. Yilloslime T C  21:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, it does pass WP:NALBUM – it reached number one on both the UK and Irish compilation charts, and was certified triple platinum in the UK, although none of this is mentioned in the article. But as I mentioned in the other AfD, EVERY Now! album manages that, so there is nothing to distinguish it from any other album in the series – either keep them all, or get rid of them all. Richard3120 (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Huh. The article doesn't say that it charted. (Or if does, I'm somehow not seeing it.) Anyways, I still say redirect. Believe it or not, when drafting my initial !vote, I had started to write—but then abdandoned out of sheer laziness—that even if it had charted, I'd still favor redirection in this case. Unless there's something specific to say about this particular album, I can't think of good reason why wikipedia is best served by having a stand alone article. (The same could probably be said for all or most of the articles in the series—but that's a separate question.) Yilloslime T C  05:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I know it doesn't say so, and I don't know why this information was never added – here's the proof of the album reaching no. 1 in both countries:, . Nevertheless, I entirely agree with the rest of your argument above. Richard3120 (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Procedural Keep do this as an RfC or something, not as hundreds of AfD discussions. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 00:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Now That's What I Call Music! discography. However that page needs a lot of work to be come a proper WP discography page with all the chart positions and certs. Many of these albums pass WP:NALBUMS (See BPI's searchable certification database and RIAA for US releases) but fail WP:GNG, so IMO all the articles should be redirected to the discography page once it was completed to standards, but as above that requires an RFC or Wikiproject discussion. I agree with Andy that the one by one approach is not the way to go. Mattg82 (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would oppose any redirection. These are either notable albums in their own right, or they're non-notable iterations in a clearly notable series.  Either way, a redirect is useless. It's obvious what series they're part of, there is no value in redirecting this very specific title (seriously, what is going to link here?) to a broad article. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I get your point. The only other options then are an RFC or the articles to be AFD'd en mass as there is nothing to stop other editors AFDing these one at a time. (See also an old but similar afd I've just remembered). Mattg82 (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2018 (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.