Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On My Knees: The Best of Jaci Velasquez (album)


 * 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 Jaci Velasquez discography. Clear consensus not to keep the article, but given the suggestion that the information could be merged to her discography, I've redirected instead of deleting outright. Previous content remains in the history for merging if desired. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

On My Knees: The Best of Jaci Velasquez (album)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Recreation of On My Knees: The Best of Jaci Velasquez. If the AfD concludes as keep, the article should be moved there. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. It has one review and the AllMusic rating. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 00:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 00:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete due to a lack of coverage in third-party, reliable sources. I do not think a redirect would be helpful in this case because a redirect for On My Knees: The Best of Jaci Velasquez already exists (as pointed out by the nominator). Aoba47 (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't have the sources that I can see on the Web to satisfy WP:GNG, nor does it appear to satisfy any of the criteria of WP:NALBUM. -Lopifalko (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per criteria 2 of WP:NALBUM. Here, here, Here, and Here you can see that the album charted over several months on Billboard.4meter4 (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Low placement on minor charts does not help to reach notability criteria. Remember, NALBUM states albums "must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and that they "may be notable" if it meets at a criterion, not that it is automatically notable. In this case, basic criteria has not been met and the low charting hasn't helped it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you are adding your own extra criteria that goes beyond what the actual guideline says in criteria 2. It doesn't matter where she placed on the chart, only that she placed. And a Billboard chart is always notable since it's the most recognizable chart in the recording industry. There is a critical review and multiple months of placements on a notable chart. All together, it's a notable album.4meter4 (talk) 02:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Walter Görlitz. WP:NALBUM includes chart placement in the following category (Specific to recordings, a recording may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria:). That is taken directly from the page so it not really a matter of personal interpretation. The page clearly says that chart placement may point to a recording's notability, not that it does on its own. The page puts more importance on coverage as shown in this part (All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.). Again, that is a part taken directly from WP:NALBUM. One critical review is not enough to support significant coverage. The chart placements and review do suggest a limited notability, but since a shorter and more exact redirect (On My Knees: The Best of Jaci Velasquez) already exists, I do not see a reason for redirecting this too. Aoba47 (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The guideline does says, "The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart." If we are going to interpret subject specific guidelines as not really applying unless they meet the criteria at WP:GNG then there is no point to having WP:NALBUM or any other subject specific guideline at all. Here is a relevant Quote: this comment from Dodger67 about subject-specific notability guidelines: An SNG is by definition meant to (temporarily) lower the bar for subjects for which proving GNG compliance is difficult.4meter4 (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you reading the two sentences of the preamble? That's what we're quoting from. The criteria states that a subject meeting the points may be notable, not that it is automatically notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 15:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Probably meets NALBUM but that is not a sufficient condition to confirm notability/GNG; are there any other RS that could do this? Try on last re-list
 * Delete There are no suitable sources; other than e-commerce sites and AllMusic/Discogs, all I can find with a Google Search is this, which appears to be slighly BLPSPS. Also, even if we take Dodger67's comment at face value, such a reduction in notability is temporary ; this came out in 2006, and having not achieved notability in the intervening 13 years means that it probably wouldn't do so anytime soon. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep If I get a vote, that is. This is the author of the article in question. I just don't get it. Why is there even a discussion about this article? I look around at other articles on Wikipedia and see literally dozens with one reference and more than a few with none. Personally, I'm glad they are there because I wanted to see them. I was looking for them. An encyclopedia is about access to information that people want to read. All of it, not just what's popular. If any information is absent then we don't get the full experience and what we come away with is less than it could or should be. I think some of you take the guidelines way too far and I will go as far as to say maybe they should be revisited as there seems to be some confusion as to what they are. I understand that you don't want every Sally Sunshine posting articles about her cat having kittens or Junior getting a participation trophy, and I thank you for that. The world does not need another Facebook. Didn't need the first one, but that's another discussion. There will be a lot of deserving material left out if we absolutely need a review from someone who's opinion may or may not coincide with everyone else's. I rarely agree with critics. Collecting music is a longtime hobby of mine and I'm often frustrated because I can't find an album on Wikipedia when I search for it. I've also found that the articles on Wikipedia tend to be more accurate than AllMusic or Discogs. That's one of the reasons I began posting articles. Because what I was looking for was not there. It should be there, otherwise what's the point? Just for the record, I am not paid to post, nor do I know any of the artists whose articles I've submitted, some of which have already disappeared from Wikipedia to my utter frustration. Thank you.HowlinMadMan (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Just because other articles exist with one reference or are lacking notability does not mean that this article should continue to exist. If you want to nominate those articles for deletion, feel free to. The instructions are at Wikipedia:Deletion process. "Deserving material" is not the criteria, notability is. Your pattern of editing does not make it seem as though you're a paid editor. I understand your frustration. When you wrap your head around notability criteria though, you'll be much less frustrated. And one thing further, it's not a bad thing to create an article about a subject that's not notable, it's actually part of the learning process. We're constantly having deletion discussions like this about old and new articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not what I was saying at all. Did you just skim my post? I know I tend to ramble and get a little long winded, but… really? I would not nominate a perfectly good article for deletion just because it didn't have enough sources. All I care about is that it's accurate. Even if I don't want to read it, someone else might be looking specifically for that unremarkable article. Personally, I believe if a well known artist, or even most that aren't so well known for that matter, releases an album, even if it tanks, it's notable and interesting, even if just to show that the golden boy or girl or band doesn't always hit the ball out of the park. It may not necessarily be remarkable, but it can still be notable. This album we're discussing charted at number 22 on one of the Billboard charts. Several songs on the album peaked at number one on that chart. Is that not notable? Even it it hadn't charted at all, I wish it had been there when I was searching for it. If I'm interested in, say, Nina Simone. There's a lot of the old stuff that you just can't find, easily, on the internet. The older artists aren't flashy enough to get the kid's attention, and I'm not going down to the library and rolling out the microfiche just to look for a source. I want to be able to read about every album she ever released, and not just the titles. I want the details. That's why you open an encyclopedia. That's the only reason you open an encyclopedia, to be honest. To learn everything you can on a particular subject. The good and the bad. That's just an example. For all I know Wikipedia may have all the details on Ms. Simone that I'd ever want to read. But back to the subject. You missed my point entirely in your nice effort to help me understand where I went wrong. I'm sure you're a smart person, but you're a tad condescending. I'll bet you didn't even realize you were doing that, actually, and if you did realize it… well, I've said enough about that already. I'm always happy to learn something new, but only if it's knowledge I truly lack in the first place and the teacher isn't talking to me like my IQ is 85. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I understand notability. And that brings me to my point once again. Notability means nothing to me if I can't find what I'm searching for. You guys are too hung up on that term, IMO. Notability. I know… you have standards to keep and that's great. Accuracy is a much better word. It an article is accurate then it should be published. The problem, as I see it, is you only want the caviar, but sometimes people want some pâté or maybe even some balogna. I want to be able to find the stuff I can't find anywhere else. I can read about Taylor Swift and Beyonce all day long and never open a Wikipedia page. That's what should be of concern to whoever is running the show. Stand out. Be unique. Be accurate. Be plentiful. People, or users like myself, want to find the stuff that's not readily available elsewhere. The stuff you can't find on AllMusic or Discogs. Or, to be more precise, a better, more accurate, representation of it. We want the caviar too, just not only the caviar. Not only the notable stuff which can easily be confused with popular (when you're relying on two or more reviews to set the standard). What are reviews but one persons opinion? Again, it sort of speaks to popularity. Information is key and you guys are deleting it because it didn't make the front page. You're deciding what people can and can't read. That's actually kink of scary, when you think about it. It even crossed my mind that the reason this article was marked for deletion might be because of it's religious nature. It was just a fleeting thought and I didn't seriously consider it. Now, I know there's probably a bunch of you guys gathered around a honking big round table, sharpening you swords and lances, smiling and winking at all the pretty wenches, and making all these decisions about which article lives and which one dies. Sorry, I suppose that's a little condescending, but it still paints a good picture. No offense. IMO, and yes, I know that means squat here, you should choose life in most cases. I mean, what does it really hurt, except to take up a small amount of space on a server? True, enough small spaces and you have a larger space but if you kill it, nobody benefits. The bottom line is, if Wikipedia doesn't have what I need, then what good is it to me? Once again, no offense. Business management 101. Oh, before I forget, my frustration is mostly because I can't find what I'm looking for on Wikipedia in the first place (that's why I decided to create my own articles, so others might find what they're looking for) and not because what I'm looking for isn't notable enough. It's just not there. I can only assume someone deleted it. And yes, that's frustrating as well. Again, no offence, or maybe just a little. Good day.HowlinMadMan (talk) 06:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did just skim your post and I'm not reading much beyond that question here. However, when you write that you "create my own articles" because you apparently can't find them elsewhere, then maybe you should try blogging. Wikipedia is only a place for articles on notable subjects. Notability is linked above. Also see WP:NOTBLOG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The information about this album can be contained within the article on the main artist (Jaci Velasquez) and a simpler redirect (On My Knees: The Best Of Jaci Velasquez) already exists so that anyone who is interested in learning more about this album or Velasquez in general can learn more about both. There would not really be a loss of information in this scenario. I can understand your frustration, because no one likes having an article that they created go to an AfD. But, I would recommend that you re-examine your argument. Again, this information could be housed in the Velasquez article and could still be accessed by anyone who is interested so I do not think your argument on information loss entirely holds up here. The article was not nominated as some sort of anti-religious statement and describing editors as "a bunch of you guys gathered around a honking big round table, sharpening you swords and lances, smiling and winking at all the pretty wenches" is not helpful. You accuse others of being condescending, but that kind of language is unnecessary for this kind of discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 00:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 11:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - I don't think this meets the GNG notability guidelines (it's post-internet, and I've searched several places in-depth, and why would anyone write about a generic "greatest hits" compilation of previously-released material anyway? so I actually doubt there's anything available), but on the other hand there is a lot of verified, non-controversial information available to a reader seeking information about this notable artist. On the other hand, someone seeking more information about this is likely to own the album, and there's little here that can't be found on the album itself.  Merging to her discography seems like a good idea, although it would look awkward in that all the other entries have their own articles.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 14:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the comment. I just wanted to clarify that there are several albums in this artist's discography that do not have independent articles, including another compilation album Mi Historia Musical. Aoba47 (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct. I don't think that information was ever built, for those albums.  The reason I'm mulling is that I don't really think the topic is notable as a stand-alone article, and accordingly per WP:PRESERVE, WP:SUBNOT and WP:NALBUM the information should be merged into the artist biography or discography.  Discography seems the obvious choice to me.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 21:05, 18 November 2019 (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.