Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twice Upon a Time: The Singles


 * 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) Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 00:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Twice Upon a Time: The Singles

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does this need to exist? What more can be added to this article? I think it's very rare for a greatest-hits-album to warrant its own article – it has to have some sort of historical merit or importance within the band's ouvre, such as Singles Going Steady, for example, which is arguably more well-known than that band's studio albums. Lachlan Foley 09:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Its existence alone being by such a notable band should warrant at least a redirect to Siouxsie and the Banshees discography. There's much worse out there, though, than to have this exist amongst all the other stubs. At least this has a review and apparently charted in the UK. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 15:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't see a benefit from deleting this. It was a hit album by a notable band. --Michig (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The coverage and chart placement (now added to the article), on the whole, seems to be enough to meet WP:NALBUMS.  Gong   show  23:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:BEFORE 96 results in Google Books, a good number not passing mentions either In ictu oculi (talk) 01:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability of this compilation is proved. This demand is unfounded as this compilation is very well known. Carliertwo (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Gongshow. Hit record with plenty of coverage to warrant inclusion. — sparklism hey! 07:57, 20 March 2013 (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.