Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playlist (album series) (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus to delete this material after two relists. Per WP:RELIST, a triple-relist is only appropriate in very exceptional circumstances so it's best to close this debate. As a no-consensus close following an inconclusive debate with low participation, this close is with no prejudice against speedy renomination. NAC— S Marshall T/C 12:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)'''

Playlist (album series)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This is just a list of albums in a compilation album series that is not notable in and of itself. This was previously deleted in an AfD but was deemed different enough to not qualify for G4. While some of the albums within the series may be notable enough to warrant articles, this list becomes nothing more than a directory. There is no significant third-party coverage of the series. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 21:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 02:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 02:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 18:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete No notability is asserted for the series as a whole. The sources are all primary or press releases. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as creator. This series is most certainly notable IMO, and even if it is not, surely this article must stay due to the ease it provides our readers. The whole point of encyclopedias is to provide info in an organised, easy to find way. It is sooo handy to have a page that lists all of the albums in the Playlist series, so people know which articles need to be created/can read a bit about it etc...in this case, the series' inherent notability is irrelevant. What is important is that it contains many notable things and the article serves as an incredibly good way to organise this information.--Coin945 (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're saying it's notable because it's notable, and it's notable because it's notable. Am I right? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all I'm saying that regardless of whether the article is inherently notable or not, it's existence is a great asset to Wikipedia so I think the rules should be bent in this case and it should be kept - because people might see the "playlist: the very best of" all over wikipedia and not know why the hell they've all got the same title - as dumbfounded as i was for ages until i did some googling and found the info you see before you. But, I also think that it is a very notable series that had produced innumerable hit records, and there is lots of info to be found on the series on the internet. etc, etc... where you got "So you're saying it's notable because it's notable, and it's notable because it's notable. Am I right?" from.... i just don't know.... :/--Coin945 (talk) 05:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, so you're saying it's notable because WP:ITSUSEFUL. You lose, try again. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, you are wrong. This isn't actually case of WP:ITSUSEFUL ("you need to say why the article is useful or useless; this way other editors can judge whether it's useful and encyclopedic, and whether it meets Wikipedia's policies. Without that explanation, it does not make a valid argument.") I believe I have given sufficient explanation, but let's go a bit further. Even if it were true - that that was my argument, what can I say? I honestly believe this is a case for Ignore all rules. Yes the "correct" thing to do might be to delete it, but it's existence just makes everything so much easier in regards to both finding out information about this often mysterious album series, and knowing/keeping track of exactly how many of these notable albums have had articles created. I think we should wait for other editors to give their 2 cents in this case. Not trying to be that one person who thinks they're above the rules or anything, but in cases like this, I honestly think this is the best way to go. (btw, "You lose, try again." was a bit harsh, don't you think? :D)--Coin945 (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm with TenPoundHammer here. Compilations that satisfy WP:MUSIC in their own right deserve an article... I find it interesting how many of the compilations are for one hit wonders (Sir Mix-a-Lot, Rick Astley, etc...) Sections of the article also look like they could potentially be a copyvio. 81M (talk) 13:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as a copyright violation... googling the "mission statement" shows it was lifted word for word. 81M (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC) - Speedy delete vote is moot. Copyvio issue is fixed
 * You can't speedy if only part of it was copyvio. Even then, it's in the context of a quotation, not a mere copy-paste. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree.--Coin945 (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: This issue has been rectified. All (questionable) copyvio had been eliminated. :D--Coin945 (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Legacy Recordings. Its clear that this is a significant part of Legacy's offerings.  The information of what exactly Playlist is can easily be put there.  The list of albums could be put there, categorized, trimmed or simply left out.    Th e S te ve   09:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 19:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheSpecialUser  ( TSU ) 07:59, 15 July 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.