Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volume One (Volume magazine 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. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 10:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Volume One (Volume magazine album)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

There was a "magazine" called Volume where each "issue" took the form of a compilation CD with tracks on it. Somebody turned nearly each of the issues (25 of 27) into it's own article. Each of the 25 issue-articles consists of only of a statement that it is an issue of that magazine, a year of release, and a track listing, and occasionally something taken from the CD itself (e.g. "Track 1 was performed by xxx"), zero other text, and zero references. The two minor exceptions to this are noted. Each has no indication of wp:notability as either an "issue" of the magazine or an album. The first of the 25 articles was AFD'd and reviewed with the idea (noted there) that it is probably applicable to the other 24, with the idea that the other 24 would get AFD nominated if the finding was "delete". The input there suggesting deletion (or merge) was unanimous; the finding was "delete" and it was deleted. The discussion and results are at Articles for deletion/Volume Seventeen This is a nomination of all of the remaining articles listed at Volume that have articles. North8000 (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

So I am also nominating the following 23 related pages (all of the issues/CD's listed at the Volume magazine article that have articles) for the same reasons:
 * (Has a few sentences of other text content)
 * Has 1 reference, a review (off-line)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (Has a few sentences of other text content)
 * Has 1 reference, a review (off-line)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (Has a few sentences of other text content)
 * Has 1 reference, a review (off-line)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Has 1 reference, a review (off-line)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Has 1 reference, a review (off-line)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Has 1 reference, a review (off-line)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete all 23 articles per WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Qworty (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Assume you mean all 24 articles?  Feel free to delete this post if you edit. North8000 (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete As nominator, per comments in nomination. North8000 (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge all with Volume (magazine). The individual editions are not notable but the series is, and the track listings are useful information which can be added into it. (Note I have just expanded and added references to the main article). Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment / offer  If specific direction were to be decided / given here, I  would be happy to transfer whatever is decided to the Volume magazine article.  Including deciding which of the following would go over:   Track listing, Info box (with or without cover image), any text not covered by the listing. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)   FYI within a couple days I'll be off wiki for over a week. North8000 (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete all - There is no information from reliable, secondary sources on these articles that justifies merging into Volume (magazine). Neelix (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete All - Like it was stated in the AFD for the single issue/album that has been deleted already, not only is there no indication that any of these individual articles are notable at all, the actual parent magazine itself is arguable not notable itself. None of these individual articles have any sources, nor are there any to be found, so merging information from here would probably not be that great of an idea, as it would just be merging unsourced information to another article.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete all - per the above. The topics can be covered in Volume (magazine), which itself is not cited that much in Wikipedia. There's nothing to merge. (The AfD test case was a good idea before making this bulk nom). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 22:46, 23 September 2012 (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.