Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call Music! 83 (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). As well as general consensus to keep, the nominator has suggested he would not have opened the AfD if sources that have now come to light had been previously listed. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   12:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Now That's What I Call Music! 83 (UK series)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is no evidence that this is a notable product. Stefan2 (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The evidence is in the main Now That's What I Call Music! article and the other 82 volumes (all with articles) of a long running and massive-selling album series. BillyH 14:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment That reasoning is a bit too WP:INHERITED, but at worst this would be a redirect. Most, if not all, of the other 82 volumes, while consistently selling and charting well, are very poorly sourced. The brand is well known and notable, and the individual albums are well promoted, but they rarely receive any signifant coverage in reliable sources. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 22:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you planning on deleting the other 82 as well? If one stays they all stay, if nothing else people use the wiki to find out what is on the disks - as i just did.

Plus it is the fastest selling album of 2012 :P

But seriously, why recommend one for deletion? all 83 are in the same format — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.98 (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you can't find any evidence that the the products have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, then yes, those should also be deleted (or changed into redirects). See also Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call 90s Dance which was closed by redirecting the article to Now That's What I Call Music! discography. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Theo polisme  01:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. There may not have been any evidence that this album was notable when it was released a week ago, the same day the article was nominated for deletion -- other than the fact that the previous eighty-two albums in this same series were also notable. But the album has been reported to have sold 295,000 copies its first week of release, and was declared the fastest-selling album of the year. I would advise against nominating for deletion future albums in the Now That's What I Call Music! UK series as long as these albums continue to be best-sellers. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NALBUMS seems to require that products have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources whereas it appears to be irrelevant whether they have sold well or not. Of course, if a product sells well, this may be an indication that there may be significant coverage, but it is up to the article author to show where to find this coverage. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep It was a #1 album the week it was released and part of a long-popular series. Whatever NALBUMS does say, unless they come out with a terrible album that sells only a few hundred copies, the Now series is an obvious 'no questions asked' candidate for an automatic article for each edition. As long as we can source chart position and playlist, there's no reason for deletion presented beyond it not being notable when the #1 album release quickly nullifies that as a deletion rationale.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 07:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Where do you have the significant coverage in independent reliable sources? --Stefan2 (talk) 10:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This is notable for potentially being the last in the Now series, as reported by the two reliable sources from the Metro and the Independent. The Sun also has an article on this. That makes three independent, reliable sources so passes WP:GNG. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   14:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That looks much better. The article has improved a lot since it was nominated for deletion. If the article would have contained these sources when it was first nominated for deletion, then I would never have nominated it for deletion. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks fit to pass WP:NALBUMS to me. — sparklism  hey! 16:07, 30 November 2012 (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.