Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Best (Ariana Grande 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃  (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 23:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

The Best (Ariana Grande album)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Albums which are little beyond a track listing are not notable per WP:NALBUMS. Although charting is indicative of notability, it alone does not mean that albums are guaranteed a standalone article. There was no marketing, no singles, no new music and it was a limited market release. Also fails WP:GNG on the grounds of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 22:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{  Talk  }- 22:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The album reached number two on the charts and I guarantee the album did receive marketing (Japanese labels generally do a lot of marketing), it's just that it's not present on the article, likely because editors would have to go through Japanese-language sources to find said marketing and it's likely they don't speak the language or didn't bother to look. Japan is the second-biggest music market in the world; saying this album was confined to one market when that market is huge really makes that not a concern or contributing factor. (We're not talking about a European country with a population of ~5 million here.) If this is not considered a notable compilation or compilation albums need to have new music on them to help their notability(?) I worry what kind of precedent this sets.  Ss  112   23:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate what you're saying about the size of the Japanese market size however, we don't need an article for an album that has very little information beyond a track listing and chart position. Unless there is coverage beyond its existence (which there doesn't seem to be) then its not notable for wikipedia. There was no new material recorded or promoted in advance of the album. Just because something charted in a notable market doesn't make it notable. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 23:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not all I said. I also said based on what I know of the Japanese market, I'm certain there is Japanese-language sources covering this out there that are not present on the article. Perhaps somebody more well versed in the areas to look for Japanese coverage will come along. Also, a compilation really doesn't need to have new material on it to be notable.  Ss  112   01:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - While, yes, charting in a general sense isn't enough to claim notability, I refuse to believe that an album that hit number 2 on an all-format national chart doesn't scrounge up a handful sources to meet the GNG. The logistics of that that are exceedingly unlikely. Sergecross73   msg me  23:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree... if you know anything about the Japanese music market then you'll know that often Western artist releases will have Japan-exclusive versions of albums that will have bonus tracks especially for the market. This release was unremarkable in the sense that it was a compilation of already released music and there was no single promoting the album. Grande didn't travel abroad to promote it. No doubt it might have receive some coverage in a limited form e.g. marketing about the actual album e.g. press release, its notability is not inherited from Grande being a notable artist, it charting or Japan being a large music market. Given that record-label led and induced releases for the Japanese market are very prevalent, claiming "you refuse to believe something hit number two without coverage" doesn't wash per WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. We can't keep a page on the "off chance" that coverage exists, even we feel certain it does. If the coverage doesn't exist then an article isn't warranted. If it was any other music market then this type of thing wouldn't happen. I think this belongs in the discography. If other coverage exists fair enough, but given that no new music is featured on the compilation, there was no supporting tour, no performances and no singles I doubt this will be the case. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 00:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm well informed of the music industry and Japan. The scenario you're proposing is ridiculous. Please focus on more productive areas of Wikipedia. Sergecross73   msg me  00:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Assume good faith, 2) It is productive in my eyes, and for what I edit on Wikipedia, to improve articles and try to establish notability. If that can't be done then redirect, merge or deletion discussions might be appropriate. I will of course follow consensus and there is ignore all rules for a reason but nevertheless I'm just applying WP:NALBUMS. Sorry you disagree ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{  Talk  }- 10:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This is the English language Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia, so irrespective that it was a limited market album, it topped that chart, was a top 100 of the year, and is a part of her discography all the same, no matter how little Grande actually marketed it.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 03:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Irrespective of chart position, WP:NALBUMS says that charting indicates notability but alone is not enough for an article to exist. We don't normally create articles just for a track listing and chart position. The state of coverage centres on the existence of the album - this doesn't meet the requirements of WP:NALBUMS. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 09:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Ss112. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 03:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as it has been addressed above, meets notability. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep the article definitely could use expansion, but it is a notable topic, and meets the WP:SONG and WP:GNG Rylesbourne (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:NALBUM per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 09:01, 25 June 2022 (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.