Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Essentials (The Blues Brothers 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. Courcelles 05:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The Essentials (The Blues Brothers album)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Prod declined. This is a n unofficial compilation release with no sources beyond Allmusic. Simply being a Blues Brothers release doesn't mean notability if there are no secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I declined the PROD because you did not provide evidence that this is an "unofficial" release, you did not define that term, and it looks like that's your main reason for saying it should be deleted. That concern is relevant for this discussion as well. Otherwise, you're probably right about the non-notability overall but I'm personally undecided. -- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 22:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

*Speedy Close - due to faulty reasoning in the nomination. No definition of "unofficial" was offered, no proof that this release is "unofficial" was offered, and no guideline stating that "unofficial" albums are automatically non-notable was offered. -- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 17:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Is anyone gonna !vote on this stupid thing? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "No secondary sources found" is a valid deletion rationale, though. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * True, but you just avoided the main issue again. Where's the guideline on "unofficial" albums? A partially faulty nomination is still faulty overall. I am merely voting based on your reasoning in the nomination, which is how this process is supposed to work. -- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 17:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Struck the "unofficial" part. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That takes care of my speedy close suggestion, which I struck out above. I'm undecided otherwise. -- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 17:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Compilations generally should not be considered notable unless they sell well enough to appear on a recognized chart, or unless there's some material that's being released for the first time, or unless direct artist involvement (such as track selection or writing liner notes) makes the compilation a part of the artist's canon.  ReverendWayne (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: No notability beyond Allmusic review, no chart history. Mattg82 (talk) 02:49, 4 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.