Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Doubt compilations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. ELIMINATORJR TALK 23:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No Doubt compilations

(View log) All the articles essentially amount to track listings and release information. There is no non-trivial coverage by reliable sources, only track listings and release information on other sites. As such, all of the articles fail Wikipedia:Notability. 17Drew 00:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep. That's not a valid reason for deletion -- it's just a reason for expansion. According to WP:MUSIC#Albums: "If the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage." I have "No Doubt" (sorry!) that No Doubt is notable; therefore, their albums are all notable themselves. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 01:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral, changing my mind. I see no reason to delete, but I can't really find a solid reason to keep, despite WP:MUSIC#Albums' statement that "Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage." Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The quote you provided hardly makes a case for these articles. Notice that it states they "may have sufficient notability". The section itself is controversial and is regularly disputed, and it doesn't apply nearly as much for compilations like these. The second sentence there states that there should be independent coverage, of which there is none. The next sentence states, "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article, space permitting." Simply put, these articles are just about all they'll ever be. With a normal article, you can put information about its conception, recording, production, critical reception, style, themes, response from music critics, and chart performance. None of these will ever be in the articles since they don't apply. 17Drew 02:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I realize that none of those apply, but I still see no reason for any of this stuff to be deleted. The video compilation, at least, has one source, so at least it might be good to go. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 02:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
One source does not make an article. From WP:NOTE: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The one source that it does have doesn't even qualify since, ignoring the fact that it's a broken link since the RIAA got rid of the database a week ago, all it does is produce a search result. It doesn't provide any information about the music video save for a "G" for gold, which isn't anywhere close to "significant coverage". 17Drew 02:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Whoops, my bad, didn't check to see if the link worked. I still see no reason to delete, but I can't come up with a valid keep reason, so I'm changing my vote to neutral, pending further discussion. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, there's no reason for their deletion and they are informative and valuable articles. -Anthony- 06:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    Did you read what was above? If an article does not have significant coverage from multiple third-party sources, it needs to be deleted. Not everything "informative and valuable" belongs on Wikipedia (see WP:USEFUL). Wikipedia is not Discogs, and track listings are not articles. 17Drew 01:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - the band is notable and well known and albums were released on a major label. Boom Box and Everything In Time both got an AMG review - something that shows notability and variability. The Videos went Gold (500,000 units sold) and is verifiable through the RIAA link. I believe it is enough to justify a page. -Halo 01:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    WP:MUSIC hardly justifies the articles. It states that an article with little more than a track listing should be merged elsewhere. WP:NOTE states that notability is significant coverage from multiple sources. One review at AMG is not "multiple sources". A listing in an RIAA database is not "significant coverage", and it only shipped (not sold) 50,000 (not 500,000). 17Drew 01:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    I'd also love to see the Everything in Time review. The site has it listed as three stars, but I'm only seeing a track listing and a grey link indicating that there's no review there. 17Drew 01:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wafulz 19:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep – That’s right. let me pile on! The individual albums in of themselves are “Noteworthy”. There are articles and websites, too numerous to mention here, that are featuring and/or are devoted to either the lyrics of the individual song or the album itself. Shoessss |  Chat  22:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
    If that's the case, then please show me some reliable sources with significant coverage of the albums. Since they're "too numerous to mention", it should be insultingly simple to do. 17Drew 22:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I’m sorry are we taking this a bit too personal; http://www.metrolyrics.com/everything-in-time-los-angeles-lyrics-no-doubt.html. Shoessss |  Chat  22:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Sites that infringe copyright (re: almost every lyrics site) cannot be used in an article. Plus, WP:NOTE defines sources as secondary sources; the lyrics of a song are a primary source. 17Drew 22:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey 17Drew, and yes I may get blocked for my next comments, but to be honest, I am not going to get in a pissing contest over this article. I expressed my opinion, gave you a site and now it is time to move on. Have a great day either way. Shoessss |  Chat  22:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that if you're not able to show that there are numerous reliable sources about the articles, then you probably shouldn't say that they just do exist. 17Drew 22:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - So, yes, the coverage needs to be improved and expanded. I fail to see how albums released by a major band fail to meet any conceivable notability requirement. Simply needing improvement, however, isn't a valid reason to delete them. matt91486 22:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
    Did you read the nomination? It seems pretty straightforward: "There is no non-trivial coverage by reliable sources, only track listings and release information on other sites." Notability means significant coverage by multiple sources; if the articles don't have coverage, they're not notable. 17Drew 22:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
    I did read it, but I also think that it's a guideline, not a strict rule. The album is for sale at dozens of online stores. While that's certainly not unbiased material that one can site, that is a wide enough scope to establish its notability. As for an article, here's one. http://www.channel4.com/music/music-core/album.jsp?albumId=533024 There's a review of "Everything in Time". matt91486 22:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
My last words on this. Yes, I read the nomination, and “YES” even read the articles and my opinion still stands. You got to “LOVE” Wikipedia, I do, it is a consensus rather that a majority rule!Shoessss |  Chat  22:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Shoessss, that comment wasn't referring to you. I'm a little confused as to why you're bringing up the fact that AfD is not a vote. The comments above yours were more votes than actual comments. Regarding the review, that's definitely a step in the right direction. But an article needs multiple sources to be considered notable. One source does not make a subject notable, much less all three. Because the albums are compilations, it's incredibly unlikely that there are sources that cover any of the major aspects of an album: recording/production, style/themes, and sales. 17Drew 23:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey 17Drew, I’m sorry for getting pissy, you are right. The comments are not directed at me. Call it a long day – fingers typing before brain engages, or what ever. No matter the outcome, I am happy to say it does not effect my paycheck. Once again, have a great day, and "Yes" I do appreciate your efforts here at Wikipedia Shoessss |  Chat  00:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but it shows there are sources out there if you are willing to look. The best way to do that will be to look at archives from around the album's release. A lot of newspapers review discs that come out, and there might be magazine reviews that aren't readily available without an archival search. It's not as if coverage of the album is limited. What's missing is coverage that can be cited. Music articles are not really my cup of tea, so I don't want to get entirely too involved in actively digging up any more sources myself (sorry if that sounds lazy or callous, but I just don't have a terribly lot of Wiki-time to devote right now, and I'm trying to put it where I'm most useful), but I'm pretty confident that it can be done through searching around its release. matt91486 16:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, my personal thought would be to keep the Videos and Everything in Time, because those will have the most sources, and to merge Boom Box in to both the Singles and Everything in Time, because I think that won't have a ton of independent coverage. Boom Box can be easily rendered redundant, where as the others can't. I'm not terribly against keeping Boom Box as an independent article, but I am less in favor of that than the other two, which I definitely think should be kept and maintained. matt91486 16:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I find nothing wrong with these articles. They are informative and the video album article is a must. It was even certified Gold. User:Luxurious.gaurav
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.