Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oops! I Did It Again: The Best of Britney Spears


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Oops! I Did It Again: The Best of Britney Spears

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable album. Barring sources that verify the album's existence/release dates in various territories, there are only three sources here that discuss it in detail - one of which cites the LiveJournal community Oh No They Didn't as a source. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article clearly passes WP:GNG. It doesn't have hundreds of sources regarding it, but it has several reliable ones that have a good amount of information. I'm sure I can also find a few more to add to the article as well. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 19:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The information from Live Journal appears in the Idolator story. It looks to me as though only the track listing came from Live Journal; I don't think that invalidates this source. I searched but didn't find additional reliable sources. —  rybec   00:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: Per Status' reasoning. Ar  re  04:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge / redirect to Britney Spears discography. Despite Status' assertion that this meets WP:GNG, I have to disagree. Amazon generally cannot be used as a source to prove notability, and the other sources denote little more than a paragraph, which I'm surprised at for a compilation of someone with major commercial success. No hits on a news or book search, and a web search brings back either the existing sources or fan / self-published sites. No evidence of chart placing either. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   10:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nobody has cited Amazon as being why it's notable... it's been the subject of several articles by reliable sources. As I said, there doesn't have to be thousands to establish notability. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 23:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's been mentioned in reliable sources, sure, but I don't think the coverage is significant enough for someone of Britney Spears' stature. I'd expect coverage in Billboard chart placings, and maybe an article in the New York Times culture section that showed how she was going to show Lady Gaga how female pop is really done ... anyway, you get my drift. Not significant coverage, I'm afraid. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   09:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge / Redirect to Britney Spears discography. Per what Ritchie333 said. -- Platinum  Fire  12:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Status and Arre. — Tomíca (T2ME) 23:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. All of her other albums, studio and compilation, have articles so I don't see the merit in singling one out as not notable. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 01:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * IAR keep per Dralwik. The article emphasises the obscurity of this recording, to the point that I wonder whether Ms. Spears is aware of it. But giving a little leeway for the sake of completeness is reasonable. — rybec   22:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I see where you're coming from, but the problem with your approach is that it gives people leeway to add bootlegs in the interest of "completeness". Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   08:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I wrote carelessly; I meant to advocate for an exception, not anarchy. If this were an article about a bootleg recording which had received coverage on Allmusic, Yahoo Music and Idolator, yes, I might say the same thing. Because bootlegs are often illegitimate, they aren't promoted and receive little press. Because bootlegs are often traded surreptitiously, a skeptical reader can't go to a shop or library to confirm the track listing or other details. When I wrote "IAR" I was being a bit sloppy: what I really meant was that the sources for this article, while adequate for WP:V, are marginal for WP:N, and that for the reason that Dralwik mentioned I advocate bending the one rule of notability this time. I thought it would be obvious that I don't advocate ignoring all the rules, all the time, such that there should be articles about every recording. —  rybec   15:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've gone back through the article and done a thorough look for sources, and come up with one more. I think there's just about enough now to tip it over the edge of WP:GNG, so I'm switching to Keep. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   16:10, 14 August 2013 (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.