Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call Music! 74 (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   keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Now That&

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The subject of the article doesn't meet WP:N and does not qualify for an article of its own. Whilst I would accept that the series itself is notable, it does not follow that each individual album in the series should have an entry - see also WP:DIRECTORY. (If this deletion passes, I propose that we review the other 73 albums in the series, all of which appear to have current pages) Guinness (talk) 11:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  — J04n(talk page) 11:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Some of the albums in the Now That's What I Call Music series hit #1 on the UK album chart. It appears that the chart performance of the more recent UK albums has not been mentioned in those articles. However, it's my understanding that sales of this series have remained high enough to justify continued notability. For what it's worth, of the three Now That's What I Call Music albums released in the U.S. this year, two hit #1 on the Billboard 200 album chart. If the Now albums continue to maintain similar popularity in the UK, I would tend to consider the released albums (as well as the upcoming Now That's What I Call Music! 74, scheduled for UK release next week) notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I didn't realise chart performance and sales were criteria for notability. I thought it was "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" Guinness (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In support of this album's media coverage, I would note that this Glasgow Evening Times article published today mentions that Now That's What I Call Music! 74 is second in Amazon's pre-order chart this week. Since the album is only being released today in Ireland and on Monday in the UK, presumably there will be more evidence of media coverage of its sales soon. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: I de-prodded this one yesterday. If you look at the template at the bottom of the article, you will see that every single CD released in this series in the US and UK (now up to 74) has been accorded its own article, so deleting this would upset what appears to be a settled precedent and reasonable scheme of organisation. In 2007, in Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Now_That's_What_I_Call_Music!_albums, a deletion nomination that covered all existing album articles in the series resulted in a KEEP. The only rule that has consistently applied to these articles is that they shouldn't be created way in advance before track listings and release dates are known, see, e.g., Articles_for_deletion/Now_That's_What_I_Call_Music!_70_(U.K._series), but those AfDs are all based on the pre-existing consensus that articles may be created once this information is known.--Milowent (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Having an article on the series is fine, I agree that as a whole, the series is notable, and is worthy of an article.  Individually, most if not all of the separate albums are not, by wikipedia's definition, notable, and thus don't meet the criteria for inclusion. I've not looked at most of them, but certainly this particular one is little more than a track listing, and that's just not wikipedia is. Guinness (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Guinness, can you please stop being such a cunt and leave the page as it was - some people are interested in music you know! If you don't like it, please stick your oar in someone elses buisness and leave the rest of us to decide if we want to see this article!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.180.196 (talk • contribs)
 * See WP:CIVIL.  TJ   Spyke   22:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Aside from the prod & Afd, I haven't touched the article. I'm well aware that people are interested in music, I'm one of them. And I am letting people decide....that's what Afd is for. PS: if you want to trade playground insults, please have the balls to use your real account, then we can do it on your talk page without polluting this discussion further than has already been done. Guinness (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of the entries in this series should be merged together, they are nothing but compilations of recent singles and not that notable. Do something like Now That's What I Call Music! 1-10 (UK series), TJ   Spyke  ''' 22:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Given the nature of the series, the albums have proven to be notable enough for articles. Collapsing them into arbitrary groupings like 1–10 would be cumbersome. Easiest approach—from a maintenance standpoint and from the user's perspective—is separate articles. —C.Fred (talk) 01:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Guinness, it sounds like you're experimenting with the idea of deleting every single album in every single country's series of this compilation. Many of these have hit #1 or at least charted in various countries.  Even if one doesn't, it's still getting it's own article to keep the series complete.  Can we just close this debate and remove the template already?  (This goes to you in a ssnse too, TJ - the album hits #1, it deserves an article.  No sense merging the rest.)  CycloneGU (talk) 05:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's an entirely unremarkable compilation album, any way you look at it. It's on the verge of obsecene just how much this article breaches notablility and 'not a directory' guidelines).  And yes, the same almost certainly applies to the other 73 in the series (Okay, I've not read them all, but I seriously doubt any of them are worthy of inclusion).  Delete the lot I say.  An album does not become notable just because it reaches #1...this applies especially to compilation albums. Guinness (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Very little that happens on wikipedia is obscene, you just seem to be at odds with the consensus on this one.--Milowent (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but the consensus has yet to provide a persuasive argument that this album is notable. I think it highly unlikely that anyone will ever be able to do so, and inspite of this, they insist that the article should stay.  Guinness (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Silly nomination. Himalayan   13:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep While I may be overextending the definition of WP:NALBUMS, since one cannot doubt the notability of the series as a whole, then the individual albums probably have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. That being said, any Now! album with an article that says nothing more than "this is the nth album in the Fooian series of Now! albums" with a track list, should be redirected to the main page or discography page. --Wolfer68 (talk) 18:47, 25 November 2009 (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.