Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Best of The Velvet Underground: The Millennium Collection


 * 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The Best of The Velvet Underground: The Millennium Collection

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I see lots of content, but I see no reliable sources outside Allmusic. The album didn't chart and was never reviewed. Also, the 20th Century Masters parent article was deleted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - The nominator continues to insist that since the parent article on the series was deleted, then all of the albums within the series should be deleted as a matter of course. Wrong. That fact is irrelevant. -- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 17:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The lack of sourcing is still a valid argument. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, but your deletion argument also includes something that is irrelevant. Nominations should be done with the proper procedure and then others can vote accordingly. -- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 19:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:OSE. It's bad practice, and contrary to the encyclopedic nature of this project, to arbitrarily punch holes in otherwise complete discographies. And, despite the nominator's palpably false assertions, links in the article show both sourcing and reviews. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean the obviously self published fansites that in no way meet WP:RS? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, as would be evident to any reasonable editor acting in good faith, I'm referring to Allmusic. And I'm not so sure that the Velvet Underground "fansite" which has apparently been endorsed by several members of the band can be so casually dismissed, either.  Particularly since that site and its maintainer/webmaster are credited/cited in about a dozen books. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - the real question is, what do we lose when there is an article that is not notable? I feel that if the parent article on the group was deleted, and there is no outstanding reason granting it notability, the offspring articles should be deleted. Cheers! -- Lord Roem (talk) 05:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If the parent article on The Velvet Underground were deleted, it would be an easy call—WP:CSD. But since The Velvet Underground hasn't been deleted, your argument is fallacious. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies. Reading the above an editor mentioned that the series had been deleted. In that case, I need to rethink this. -- Lord Roem (talk) 05:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: WP:OSE isn't a argument for keeping things. This article fails WP:V, as it is not based on independent, third-party sources, and I don't see any method for correcting that.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course it is. That's why it says 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" and points out that providing entries/articles for full sets of such items "serves the purpose of Wikipedia being a comprehensive reference." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: I agree that the parent article on the series being deleted doesn't mean that each article about an album in the series should be deleted. Articles should be judged on their own merits. That said, sourcing is the chief concern and I wasn't able to find any reviews other than Allmusic (though I admit I only did a cursory search; no prejudice against anyone else conducting a more thorough search & coming up with better results). A lot of these kinds of "best of" compilations suffer from a lack of sources available from which to write good encyclopedia articles. That doesn't prevent us from listing the release in The Velvet Underground discography, and citing Allmusic as a source. It just means there isn't enough to say about the album to warrant a stand-alone article. It's a pretty common situation around here. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - I agree with the nominator that this compilation has been mostly ignored by third parties. It's surely a quickie from the record company and most of the rest of the world doesn't care. But a review by AllMusic provides the barest glimmer of notability (per precedent at WP:ALBUMS) and the record's existence has been noted by fans of the group, as can be seen in a basic web search. As Hullaballoo said, this is supposed to be an encyclopedic project and there is no evidence that deletionism is the only valid way to assess what's in Wikipedia. Though I will concede that this article has some fancruft that is unsupported and can be removed. -- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 19:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per Doomsdayer520. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. While I have no strong feelings about keeping this particular article, I am worried about the potential consequences. IMO an Allmusic review establishes the necessary notability for an album, and lots and lots of album articles are based on this as the only reliable source, especially older albums that pre-date the internet era. This includes studio albums from highly notable artists, like Elton John's Christmas Party, A Biography, and Sons and Fascination/Sister Feelings Call. If we delete this one, someone could easily come along and claim we also delete those for consistency, and probably a few thousand others. I wouldn't want this to happen. – Ib Leo (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No one would argue that a studio album is non-notable, with very few exceptions. Compilation albums are a whole different animal. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced by this last comment by Mr. Hammer. Why are compilation albums a whole different animal? On what grounds? Once again some more detail is necessary if you want to make claims like this. You might have a point about quickies like this album, released by a record company with no promotion in order to make a shifty buck, and with little or no input from the artist. But then I'm not the one making all these nominations. -- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 21:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Because compilation albums come as close to inherently non-notable as you can get. The music world's version of a clip show, they don't constitute an original work and don't prompt the release of singles.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That argument makes no sense whatever to me. That's just not what Wikipedia-notability means. We're not giving out medallions for creative achievement here; we're trying to write an encyclopedia, and that means we're trying to write the articles that people who want to use an encyclopedia would find useful. I don't see any rational reason to believe that encyclopedia users don't want, or wouldn't find useful, articles on compilation albums. There's a stronger argument, to my mind, for treating most singles as inherently nonnotable -- they're not over the last 40 years or so, independent creative works, but components of albums, and they're principally used as marketing devices by record companies. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've argued for years that singles should be covered in the parent album, and should essentially never receive articles. I lost that battle long ago. Notability has nothing to do with usefulness, though. Wikipedia notability simply means that independent sources took note of the topic and wrote about it. If you could convince me that this article is based on material from independent, third-party sources, as required by WP:V and elaborated on by WP:N, I'd change my !vote to keep. &mdash;Kww(talk) 03:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This sub-discussion started because Mr. Hammer said "Compilation albums are a whole different animal" and Kww said "compilation albums come as close to inherently non-notable as you can get." Despite the rhetorical flourishes, no WP guideline of policy has been offered to define things like "whole different animal" and "inherently non-notable" or why those qualities are grounds for deleting an article. Outside of this sub-discussion, the matter of reliable sources is still relevant and can be debated accordingly. -- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 16:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Kww. --89.211.181.22 (talk) 11:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: this !vote was !cast by indef blocked sockpuppeteer User:Magpie1892. See here for related ANI discussion and here  for the initial report of multiple account abuse. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: the !above !supposition is just that. Untrue and !unfounded. There is, was !and has never been any connection between this user ID (male, I think) in the !UK and me, a female, in !Qatar. Questions !need to be asked of the supposer, it !seems. Bad, bad form. --89.211.181.22 (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The article definitely lacks in sources, and that is a concern of mine. While I will not immediately vote for its deletion, I would like to state that it certainly is an unexemplary wikipedia article. If this article should be kept, it must be equipped with more sources and more verification. If this does get deleted, though, it isn't that big of a loss. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 08:21, 1 January 2011 (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.