Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call Music! 67 (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. Bad relist from a non-admin. Pretty clear consensus. Primefac (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Now That's What I Call Music! 67 (UK series)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:NALBUM guidelines these albums are unlikely to grow much beyond their current status, primarily as track listings and so despite their popularity as compilation albums are unlikely to be individually notable. Recommend delete and redirect to Now That's What I Call Music! discography. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect all to Now That's What I Call Music! discography. Nowhere near enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources on any of them to show they meet WP:GNG, and no indication they charted on a major chart, simply the niche chart for compilation albums, which doesn't satisfy WP:NALBUM.  Onel 5969  TT me 15:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep all as long established articles on a notable album series. These sell in the hundred thousands and clearly meet inclusion criteria. I’m also confused as to why only a small set of articles have been nominated, when some are still inappropriate redirects. Aiken D 17:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I was trying to not spam AfD. Being more comprehensive is why I had initially started down the RfC route but went here when that didn't receive support on the talk page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect all - Yes, according to WP:NALBUM, they "may" be notable to whatever extent we see notability in charting on the compilation albums charts. (Downloading music has largely rendered such charts pretty much meaningless.) That said, these articles are pretty much catalogs of track lists: Here's when it was released, when it charted, how many copies it sold, the track list and a link to the primary source for all of the info. Call it a permanent stub or call it a catalog. There is nothing here to allow us to write reasonably detailed, independently sourced articles on these. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 19:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect all: let's just state the facts here for a moment. Pretty much every one of the 100 (so far) albums in this series has reached no. 1 on both the UK and Irish compilation charts, and has been certified multi-platinum in the UK at least. Using the first album in this AfD as an example, Now 67, here is the proof of it reaching no. 1 on the UK Compilation Chart and on the Irish Compilation Chart . And here is its BPI certification for shipping double platinum (600,000) copies in the UK . So superficially, two national charts and a certification would appear to pass WP:NALBUM. The big issue that I see here is... that's ALL you can say about this album, and almost all the other albums in the series as well. They don't get reviewed (the last one I remember seeing a review for was Now 5, when they were still a novelty), and there is no meaningful text that you can add, because they rarely get discussed individually in detail – the most recent Now 100 has, but that's because apparently 100 is an important number. And the Compilation Chart is not the main chart in either the UK or in Ireland – reaching no. 1 on this chart is no big deal when MP3 playlists and streaming have consigned the compilation album to oblivion in all other cases. In short, these articles are going to remain permastubs, consisting of a track listing, two sub-chart positions, and a certification. If you keep this, you may as well agree that every other compilation album ever released (not just the Now records) also passes WP:NALBUM and deserves its own article, because they almost certainly will have placings on two national compilation charts and a UK certification as well. Should we keep articles for the individual albums, despite the fact it's a near certainty they will remain forever essentially a track listing with no article text, and never grow beyond what's already there? I just think the chart positions and certifications, which is the only important and verifiable information, can be adequately and better covered in a table on the Now That's What I Call Music! discography page. Richard3120 (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect all. user:Richard3120 has very eloquently explained why redirection is the right course of action.  I'd just like to throw in a reminder that the guidelines very explicitly state "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. Rather, these are rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is listed at articles for deletion."  As editors we need to exercise some judgment and not just rotely apply notability criteria and declare that there should be an article. -- Whpq (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect all. The key element to WP:NALBUMS is not the list of criteria which MAY make the album notable but the statement that the album has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Charting, in and of itself, is not "significant coverage" but just an indication that a lot of people bought these albums but no one is actually talking about these releases. Note that when I started redirecting these, it was AFTER I updated the discography for the UK section with the only sourced info for most of these (the tracklisting from the official Now! website, the chart position, and whatever certification it may have received). The individual pages didn't offer anything else besides this info so I felt the redirects were appropriate and following the precedent set by the recent AfD results for Now 51 and Now 52. Even if there is some additional minimal coverage elsewhere (such as the milestone of reaching 100 volumes), it can be placed in the Now That's What I Call Music! main article. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 16:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep all - Richard3120 is correct in asserting that these individual NOW articles will probably never progress much beyond a tracklist, since as they are compilations they have no production information or reviews like studio albums. However, I think the point of these articles' value to this encyclopedia has been missed, namely that the NOW series offers a curated benchmark of the most popular music of a particular frame of time (due to the series' longevity and the consistency of their release schedule, as well as their popularity as evidenced by their consistent No 1 chart position). Each individual album article features links to the songs and artists who were considered popular enough for inclusion on the album within that timeframe, many of whom appear only once or twice in the charts before disappearing. In this way, their intrinsic usefulness to the encyclopedia is more akin to that of a WP:LIST. Bob talk 19:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep all. Satisfy NALBUM due to the spectacular level of sales and LISTN per the arguments of Bob Castle above. James500 (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect all per . That the data is useful doesn't indicate notability, and since the track lists are arbitrarily curated by Sony/Universal WP:LISTN can't really be used as justification for their existence. The track listings can be stored on Wikidata (although this would require the creation of new items for some of the songs if they're different to the originals); they qualify for Wikidata notability because it is verifiable that all of these albums exist and they all have identifiers in external databases. Jc86035 (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect all as they're fairly useless unless there is more significant coverage per article. The songs individually are all notable since it's basically a top-40 compilation but a bazillion tracklistings are utterly worthless. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  19:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect all Great points so far that I'd, frankly, never given much thought to. Allowing all of these "NOW (xx)!" albums to have their own article opens up a rather large can of worms, in my opinion. Striker force Talk 19:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure why this was relisted. There appears to be a consensus to redirect all. Striker force Talk 21:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm with Striker here. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  21:01, 15 August 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.