Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Hits (Blue Öyster Cult 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 Delete all except the seven identified by Eric444, as there does seem to be some consensus that this is the correct action; hopefully this is one of the rare times that a bulk AfD with differing amounts of notability has actually worked properly. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Super Hits (Blue Öyster Cult album)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )



The parent article, Super Hits, was just deleted via AFD, which has also brought to my mind the notability of each individual entry. Almost all of these articles are scarce more than track listings, and mostly just one sentence of content (one of them doesn't even go that far!). A couple have made very low chart positions and/or have super-short reviews from Allmusic, but that doesn't translate to notability in any way. Also, the presence of "([name of artist] album)" makes for unwieldy redirects, so deletion would be a better alternative. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete some If there are no sources, but for articles that have a source for a review or chart-listing, these are notable enough artists and if you combine those two factors, it seems like these are notable enough. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not if the chart position is way down in the 50s and the Allmusic review is barely two lines. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete They won't be missed.  Apparently none of them were actually released by the Artist.   They were released by Sony as moneymakers and I never saw them anywhere other than on Amazon or Ebay.  Bwmoll3 (talk) 05:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep some These can't all be judged in one fell swoop, because some are more notable than others. The RIAA search isn't working for me right now, but Joel Whitburn's Hot Country Albums 1964-2007 confirms that the releases by Ricky Van Shelton and Shenandoah have been certified Gold (for sales of 500,000 copies), while the releases by Charlie Daniels and Willie Nelson have been certified 2&times; Multi-Platinum (for sales of 2 million copies), so I would vote to keep those. I would also vote to keep the releases by Brooks & Dunn and Alan Jackson as they are by notable artists, charted in the Top 50 of the Billboard Top Country Albums chart and were reviewed by Allmusic (the Alan Jackson review being far more than two lines). The Kenny Chesney release also has my keep vote for being by a notable artist, charting on Billboard and being listed on Allmusic. All of this information either appears in these articles with sources or will in the next few minutes. On the other hand, I would vote to delete the releases by Lonestar, Patty Loveless, Montgomery Gentry, Willie Nelson (volume 2), Ricky Van Shelton (volume 2) and Pam Tillis (volumes 1 and 2) as they didn't chart and barely earned a mention on Allmusic. Eric444 (talk) 10:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope the users voting are taking the time to judge each album on its individual notability and I hope the closing admin will as well. The albums by Charlie Daniels, Willie Nelson, Ricky Van Shelton, Shenandoah, Brooks & Dunn, Alan Jackson and Kenny Chesney are on a different scale and the only argument that I'm seeing to delete them is that they're called "Super Hits." On their own, these album articles establish notability, are well sourced and would probably never be nominated for deletion, but among this hodgepodge of stubs, I don't feel they're getting a fair trial. A quick look at the incoming links to Willie Nelson's Super Hits includes 1994 in country music, where it is listed among the top album releases of the year. WP:OSE states that "in categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items." Brooks & Dunn released 16 albums during their 20 year career, all of which charted and all of which have articles. It would be kicking a hole in their discography to delete their Super Hits, rendering Category:Brooks & Dunn albums incomplete. All of the nominated albums that contain sources, charted, were reviewed by Allmusic and particularly those certified by the RIAA should be kept. Eric444 (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * KEEP THEM ALL without exceptions!!! –p joe f (talk • contribs) 10:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Care to expand on that Pjoef? Just wondered what your rational for keeping them was. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete them all. As with the parent "Super Hits" article, these albums do not meet notability criteria. They were cheaply produced, budget albums, featuring previously released material, put out by Sony with no involvement from the bands or artists themselves. In addition, according to Joel Whitburn's Top Pop Albums 1955 - 2001 none of these albums even charted in the Billboard 200 album chart. As someone who has worked very hard on The Byrds' related articles over the past year or so, I've always been amazed that the Super Hits (The Byrds album) article even existed. As much as I love The Byrds, this album is clearly non-notable. The same goes for all the other Super Hits articles on Wikipedia. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Willie Nelson's did. I fail to see how a compilation by a notable artist that charted on two notable charts, was certified for the RIAA for sales of 2 million copies and was reviewed by a notable third party website doesn't fit the criteria for an article. Eric444 (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK...my mistake. Although I see it only just scraped into the Billboard 200 at number #193. I guess Willie Nelson's compilation may be the exception to the rule but then again, like all the Super Hits albums, his contains nothing new, just repackaged material, which definitely diminishes its notability in my opinion. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 10:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all - Wikipedia isn't the Internet Compilation Album Database.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete All these "gas-station" compilations are not "real" albums. By "real" I mean the artist in question was not involved, only the label/distributor. I feel that diminishes their notability. The Interior (talk) 23:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete All as non-notable comps. —Carrite, Sept. 28, 2010.
 * KEEP ALL They provide great information on those artists great songs on those songs. They are great collection in which I approve. Yes there budget album but, most of them have there classic songs on them. There are more less improtant things on Wikipedia that should be deleted first. You want to delete them just because their low class comps, now that's not a great reason for it. I agree that there no good with only ten songs but at least they provide quality and the artists great songs. --Ltlane777 (talk) 28:28, 29 September 20010 (UTC)
 * Keep the ones that Eric444 suggested to keep and delete the others. Just because some releases aren't notable doesn't mean all aren't. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep at least some - Per Eric444. And I am not sure his list is complete as to which of these meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Rlendog (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep the seven that Eric444 suggests as they seem to pass WP:NALBUM by having both charted and been covered by reliable sources. Delete the others for failing the same guideline. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:53, 13 October 2010 (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.