Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call Music! 52 (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!. The bigger question is how to deal with music compilation series in general. I would suggest taking that discussion to WT:MUSIC. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Now That's What I Call Music! 52 (UK series)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not independently notable per NALBUM. We already have a container article for this series--well, "article" is a big word, it's just a list--and there is no need for this. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 19:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 19:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: I don't disagree with your deletion nomination, but out of curiosity, why did you pick this album out of the nearly 100 albums in the series? It seems to me that they are all equally (non-)notable, and if you delete one album, you may as well delete the articles for all of them.
 * I can see the notability of the overall "container" article Now That's What I Call Music!, because right from the first album they were huge sellers and had two effects on the UK charts: firstly, they showed the major record labels that they could put out their own "chart hits" albums and not license their tracks to the likes of K-Tel or Arcade; and secondly, their success was held responsible for the creation of the separate compilations chart in 1989. The first few albums in the series had some sort of novelty about them, and I would certainly be able to find actual album reviews for them – I remember reviews appearing in the UK music press at the time. But the series has long since descended into a three-times-a-year, regular-as-clockwork output, with nothing to distinguish the albums from each other. The usual single claim of notability is that they make number one on the UK compilations chart, but this really doesn't amount to anything, because the growth of DIY playlists from MP3s and Spotify in the last ten years has killed the compilations market, and the three annual Now! albums now account for up to 80% of all compilations sold in the UK each year, so getting to no. 1 when you have no competition is no great feat.
 * To be honest, in my view almost no individual compilation album is notable in its own right, and few compilation "series" are either – the Now!'s may be one of the few exceptions. Richard3120 (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I picked one at random. Actually, I picked two, but the first one I picked had charted. No, I am not going to nominate every single compilation album. BTW it's not just about sales, of course, and getting to no. 1 is really no better than getting to no. 2; reviews are much more valuable for purposes of the GNG. Drmies (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, this one charted as well, reaching no. 1 – unfortunately you can't check it on the OCC's website because they seem to have an error and don't display any charts between April 2002 and January 2004. But it was the third biggest-selling compilation of the year (behind Now! 53 and Now! 51, of course). All 97 Now! compilations to date have either reached no. 1 or, in very few cases, no. 2 on the compilation chart. So really, I do believe that either they are all notable, or none of them are notable. As almost none of the albums after the first half dozen have any reviews at all, I would lean towards the latter view. By the way, the editor most keen on making articles for all these compilations is Hadji87, if you want to notify him of this AfD. Richard3120 (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * As stated above, the error on the OCC's website makes it impossible to prove online that this album reached no. 1 in the UK compilations chart – I can add the citation to the print version of Music Week where the official UK charts are printed, but I would need a couple of weeks to go to the British Library and dig out the relevant issue. But here's the proof the album also reached no. 1 on the Irish compilation chart: https://www.chart-track.co.uk/index.jsp?c=p%2Fmusicvideo%2Fmusic%2Farchive%2Findex_test.jsp&ct=240003&arch=t&lyr=2002&year=2002&week=30.
 * So the question for other editors viewing this AfD comes down to this: is making no. 1 on two national compilation charts notable enough to keep the article? This album is no more and no less notable than any other album in the series: either they should all be kept, or they should all go. Richard3120 (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I agree that all could/should be redirected (which I had done for nearly all other countries' Now releases that had articles years ago). Individually, they offer nothing but the track listings for each release. Popularity doesn't mean notable if they don't receive any coverage beyond first-week charting/sales totals. If someone wanted to expand the discography page, chart positions and/or certifications received can be added there. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 18:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment I've seen these before, and declined to nominate for AfD due to their chart success. I think the best solution is for all the individual albums to be merged to new per-country overview pages.  I have no interest in doing any of this work, if nobody else is willing to volunteer this should be kept by default. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 15:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947 ( c ) (m)   05:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect all to Now That's What I Call Music!, the container article, per the evidence and explanation given by above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Now That's What I Call Music!. An article like this one reveals the gap between the GNG and specialty sub-guidelines like WP:NALBUM. The reason that NALBUM asks that we preserve albums with high chart positions is because the guideline assumes that a high chart position will be correlated with lots of interesting things being written about that album. This is true 99% of the time, and then this is the 1% where it isn't. By the letter of the guideline, we need to keep this article, but the spirit of the guideline is to protect articles about which we could write encyclopedic articles. There is no potentially interesting prose to be written about this album, as far as anyone knows. If there had been a famous legal case involving Now! struggling to secure the rights to a particular song, or if the album had to be recalled because all of the songs had been overdubbed with satanic rituals, then we'd have an article. But just another hits compilation?  A  Train talk 07:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "satanic rituals"... some of these albums contain Justin Bieber songs, is that what you meant? Richard3120 (talk) 09:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Bingo.  A  Train talk 09:16, 18 October 2017 (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.