Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volume Fifteen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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. - Mailer Diablo 22:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Volume Fifteen

This is a various-artists compilation created to go along with a magazine which doesn't appear overly notable in its own article (Google throws up a number of "Volume Magazines", none of which seem to be the right one). Even if the mag itself is notable, I'm not convinced that any given compilation of artists featured within its pages is notable. BigHaz 09:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Also included in this afd are the rest of Volume magazine compilations. - Bobet 10:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete all, since I can't find evidence of notability for any of the individual compilations. Having these articles would be akin to having an article for each issue of a magazine (since a compilation was supposedly included with every magazine), which isn't useful. - Bobet 11:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete most. I'll agree that most of the articles are probably not notable enough (I created almost all of 'em, and some were very difficult to find info), but the Trance Europe Express series is reasonably well represented in a Google search (~15k hits), and were fairly important compilations of important artists. Keep those, keep the main Volume magazine article, tank the rest. — Wwagner 18:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC) I'm changing my vote to Merge and redirect to Volume magazine, based on the Garrie's comments below, and a test page that I made. See User:Wwagner/sandbox. — Wwagner 04:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all - all of these albums (except the "best of"'s, of course) were comprised of otherwise unavailable material by the artists in question, many of whom are highly notable and remain so. It would be silly to have some and not others based on a percentage of how many artists per disc pass WP:MUSIC. It would be sillier to move the tracklistings to the main article as it would be huge. I think the common sense approach is to keep them all. Ac@osr 20:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I don't quite follow that. The notability of the artists is anything but in question, but does that make everything which they release (or, in this case, don't release except in this format) notable? BigHaz 22:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Additional comment - just as an aside, the article NME compilations survived a deletion vote earlier this year despite the fact the discs in question were nothing more than promotional samplers containing previously issued material. It may be that an article of this type would be appropriate here although, as I said, it would be huge. Ac@osr 20:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment There is a method to "roll up" sections which is being used on some railway and bus information articles. This would significantly reduce the size of this page because only the CD the reader is looking at would be expanded. Sorry but I don't know the article specifically I think it is a list of London bus routes? Garrie 22:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete All per nom. TJ Spyke 22:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge FWIW, I just found myself needing an article on Volume Sixteen and hey, there it was. To justify keep... well, compare with Category:Compilation album series and make up your mind. To justify merge... we have "huge" articles on compilation album series like Café del Mar and Mystera. –Unint 02:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge These were significant influential albums - but merge into individual entries for series - ie just one for Volume, trance atlantic, trance europe etc —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.82.255.248 (talk • contribs).
  • Keep all Very notable series in the UK. Also, the nominator has been misguided a little - these were full length CDs of new material sold in the shops at full price, but which came with a CD-sized book. They weren't freebies like NME, and the "magazine" was never available seperately from the CD. --kingboyk 07:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - In that case, aren't we then dealing either with individual issues of a magazine (which includes a CD) or individual entries in a compilation series of albums (which include a magazine)? BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 07:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, the latter. --kingboyk 09:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Further, if the series is notable in the UK, Google seems strangely silent on the matter. There've been a lot of things about music released over the years called "Volume", but the only thing I could find specifically on this was a discussion board post asking if people remembered it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 07:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Google doesn't know everything friend. These were early 90s compilations and predate Google. I think you have enough comments from British music fan editors saying "important compilation series" to have your answer :) --kingboyk 09:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC) PS for the record, imho Volume 2 and Trance Europe Express were the best :)
        • Fair cop regarding the limits of Google, and thanks for clearing up exactly what they were in the first place. The question is, though, whether or not every single one of these compilation albums is notable in and of itself. I'm willing to agree that the entire thing (Volume Magazine) is notable, but why does each album necessarily need its own individual article? Surely the approach to take would be to give each compilation a paragraph or equivalent on the Volume Mag article itself. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 09:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Possibly, because the articles are in a bad state at the moment. That's not an AFD issue though; the articles have a "right" to exist as does any other member of a notable compilation series. If you'd like to be bold and clean them up or do some merging it doesn't need to be an AFD matter. (Because, somebody else might want to undo it, particularly if more material becomes available - such as reviews. If an article is deleted, the history goes too and this kind of bold-revert-discuss pattern can't happen).
          • FWIW, given the volume (pun intended) of albums in this series I think leave em alone. Whatever, I don't think they're deletable. Over and out :) --kingboyk 10:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • keep all these please per kingboyk they were influential albums and should be included Yuckfoo 09:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
      • further comment - I do think the waters have been clouded here by a misunderstanding as to exactly what Volume was. It was both a magazine and a compilation album. The discs weren't cover freebies of the type you get now (although, in British publishing, it has a clear influence on magazines like Word which always carry cover CDs), rather each was comprised of new, previously unissued material. Each edition sold at CD price. That said, each issue carried contemporaneous album etc reviews so they were certainly a periodical. PS - Volume 4 was the best :) Ac@osr 13:00, 7 September 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Volume_Fifteen_481b.html"