Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volume Seventeen


 * 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. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Volume Seventeen

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This article was nominated for deletion in a mass deletion discussion about six years ago, but the discussion was muddled with the many varying articles being discussed and there was no consensus. A search for reliable, secondary sources for this specific article reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This album fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for albums. Neelix (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  TheSpecialUser TSU 06:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)




 * Delete So it looks like there was this "magazine" (Volume (magazine)) where each "issue" took the form of a CD with tracks on it.  And somebody turned nearly each of the issues (25 of 27) into it's own article and the other two into red links for future articles.  Each of the 25 issue articles consists of only a track listing, and with zero references.  IMO all 25 need to get deleted, (technically merged, with zero material to be brought over)   the parent article should probably stay.  Deleting this one of the "25" is a good place to start.  North8000 (talk) 11:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)  North8000 (talk) 10:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge Ok, take all of the various and sundry Volumes, discs, etc and stick them all on ONE list. There is no need to take the  volumes and list each individually.  It's a series of items in volume form to be taken as a whole, so it should be listed it as such.  As a whole they may better fit the WP:GNG for a series of contributions, if at all. Яεñ99 (talk) 12:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good idea; the list already exists at Volume (magazine). North8000 (talk)
 * The trouble with that is, that would require taking all the various "Volume (Number)" articles and keeping them as redirects to that...how many "volume seventeen"s of things are out there? Maybe not billions and billions, but surely over nine thousand. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you are intending to say. North8000 (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What I'm trying to say is that "Volume Seventeen" doesn't work as a redirect - which would be required after a merge, lest the merged content become WP:COPYVIO - as it's ridiculously ambiguous. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point.  Based on that I withdraw my support for the "merge" idea and instead stick with "Delete". North8000 (talk) 10:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 21:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: Regardless of the proprietors' difficulty with the English language - the word "magazine" does not, as commonly understood, pertain to a series of compilation CDs, however thick the liner notes booklets may be - no one seemed to have noticed. While search terms are dicey, given the current existence of a quarterly architectural magazine by that name, an archival search on Google News UK turns up ZERO hits for "Volume Magazine"  leading me to wonder if anyone noticed.  Even if notability could be established for the series, I can't imagine that each individual CD would in its own right meet the GNG.   Ravenswing   07:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I would like to throw the thought on the table that this AFD is sort of a "test case/template" for the other 24 articles on individual issues.  If the finding here were to be "delete" I intend to nominate the other 24 articles on individual issues and cite this AFD.  Does somebody know of a good process to do this to consolidate the discussions?   North8000 (talk) 10:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply: Just do exactly that: make a bundled nomination and cite this one.   Ravenswing   18:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I plan to do that if this one is deleted. North8000 (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per Ravenswing. There's no way this individual item meets the notability criteria to keep its own article, whether you want to consider it as a magazine issue or as an album.  And as pointed out by Ravenswing, there's no real indication or sources to show that even the parent magazine has any notability of its own.  A straight out delete rather than any sort of merge would be preferable.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:39, 12 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.