Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rent (albums)


 * 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. Keilana talk(recall) 02:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Rent (albums)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is nothing more than a list of songs from the Rent musical soundtracks, which violates policy at WP:NOT. – Dream out loud (talk) 05:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - per nom. This information is already in the article Rent (musical).  This is unnecessary repetition. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom & LonelyBeacon. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, all information in the article is available elsewhere in a superior form. Lankiveil (talk) 13:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep These albums were released in 96 and are still charting with Billboard.  &mdash;   Music  Maker  5376  14:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That may be fine and good, but then there should be some information out there to establish notability ... for example: that it is an album that has charted for an unusually long period of time.  My searches do not turn that up.  In the absence of that, the article is nothing more than a repeated directory, and that is specifically verboten by WP:NOT.  If the importance of this album (independent of the musical, which has indisputable notability) is notable, then it should be easy to find information on it besides a track listing. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I went to www.billboard.com and searched for "rent". I may have read the information wrong; apparently, as of 1/17/07 it was #15 on the Top Cast Album Chart.  It peaked at #2 and was on for 47 weeks.  To get more information requires a subscription.
 * I created this article by forking this information from the main Rent article, as I thought it was repetitive and unnecessary. I hoped that someone else would come along and add some actual information, but no one has.  I fear that if this article is deleted, the information may creep back into the main article, which is actually coming along rather nicely.  &mdash;   Music  Maker  5376  17:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, i've re-arranged some things and it now looks just like 80% of any other music album article looks.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 18:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'll admit that it looks better, but I still don't see why the few extra tracks and notes cannot be included in the article on the musical itself? I'm still not seeing how this album meets WP:N. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * From WP:MUS: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." The musical is certainly notable; the composer is notable; the actors (for the most part) are notable.  Ergo, the album is notable.  Again, this article was forked from the main because it made it entirely too long.  Merging it back is a bad idea.  &mdash;   Music  Maker  5376  03:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree totally with what you are saying, and if you added the whole list back to te article, I wcould see it being long, but a small section highlighting additional tracks should cover everything without unduly adding too much length to the article. I did read the WP:MUS section that you are refering to, but I think cast albums would be different?  In the spirit of notability not being inherited, I'm not sure that this follows. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why should cast albums be different? It's not like these albums didn't sell; the notability stands on its own.  They were charting TEN YEARS after their release.  That's not notable?  &mdash;   Music  Maker  5376  13:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - My line of thinking: Individuals or bands may produce many different albums, each one with different songs.  A cast album for a musical essentially produces one album, and that is all that will ever be produced (I know, there can be a reordering of songs, songs can be deleted/added over time as the production changes), so in my thinking, it is a slightly different entity than say an album produced by a band. I think these differences can be noted in a short section within the article without adding too much to the length of the article already.  As an aside, if I were looking for song information about Rent, I would look for the musical, not the album. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Then your argument is that every cast album is inherently NN, which doesn't make any sense. &mdash;   Music  Maker  5376  14:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No. If the album were otherwise notable, then I would think it warrants an article. From what I am seeing, this article was forked simply for length, and not for notability.  From what I see, the essential information can be readded to the article wihout adding substantially to the length of the article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You've said that it charting for ten years is not notable enough. You've said that it being a recording of one of the most popular musicals of the late 20th century is not notable enough.  In your estimation, what would make the recording of a musical notable?  &mdash;   Music  Maker  5376  16:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The one thing (and only one thing) that would make it notable is any citation in this article that would fulfill WP:V to support notability as an important album. I've heard that it has charted for ten years, but I see no evidence.  If you look below, I am in doubt that being a cast recording, even from a notable musical, fulfills the album requirements at WP:MUSIC LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The only citation I can give without buying a subscription is this one. It's only for the highlights album and doesn't paint the whole picture.  &mdash;   Music  Maker  5376  19:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Easily fulfills WP:MUS criteria  Th e S te ve   09:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I, with resepect, disagree. WP:MUS claims that albums are notable if the individual or ensemble are notable.  While Rent(musical is certianly notable, the cast of the musical (who recorded the piece) is not notable per Wikipedia (there is no article on the cast of "Rent"), and while a few members may have been notable, they are not inherently notable as a group.  Aside from that, the album would need to stand on its own to meet notability requirements, and I'm not sure that, aside from Billboard rankings, there is much sustained coverage to meet WP:V on its own.  LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's like saying a "supergroup" like Oysterhead isn't inherently notable. That's a group comprised of three notable members of other groups.  Regardless of what they've accomplished, the formation of a group (with a name, rather than just getting together to jam) is notable.  If those actors' notability comes from what they've done, and the recording is the physical manifestation of what they've done, the recording is notable.  &mdash;   Music  Maker  5376  19:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The musical Rent is highly acclaimed, with a huge number of very prestigious awards, including a Pulitzer. Since the music is a major part of a musical, I don't think its a stretch to say that the album, with works by the cast, even if not as famous as the musical itself, is certainly notable enough to warrant inclusion here.   Th e S te ve   06:04, 27 December 2007 (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.