964:"keep" speaker to do any work on to show notability here has found, what, 1 each for some of the articles above? If you don't want stuff to be "at risk" either only actually create articles about notable stuff, or go find the sources to back up all your claims that these are somehow notable albums, because right now, no one has proven they are. Claiming they are notable just because you say so means nothing. Notability is not a subjective criteria. Its well defined and easily shown. So show it, or just accept that these albums, and those others, are not notable and either delete them, or be proactive and look at merging them into a single discography-style list. --
991:. He's been nominated for a Grammy, sold millions of albums, and yet all but one of his works listed are compilations. Since there are others who feel as you do that compilations are non-notable, very few of his works have articles. I would say that his notability allows leeway in including an article on all of his albums. Now I've begun adding refs to the entry I created, and others have demonstrated that these refs exist for every one of the articles you've AfD'd. It's come down to the fact that it is a bit easier for you to delete than to fix. Have it your way, I guess. Like I said, you won't be stopping at
1039:"from a music magazine that likely reviews most CD releases" - So you're just guessing at this point, I see. How many CD releases do you think there are each week? And how many reviews do you think a print magazine can write? There's a editor's review by Alastair Lee in BBC Collective as well which you've decided to ignore in saying "You added one ref". Please stop making false statements in support of your point. -
1250:
1086:, and he wrote the review. You're welcome to ask someone in a position of authority whether or not BBC Collective is a reliable source, but this falls a bit above the level of a forum posting. I'd rather you not respond in such a misleading way in the future, but my previous requests haven't been heeded so I suspect this one won't be either. -
141:." A google news search pulls up all of twelve possible hits for the entire series, mostly announcement type things. The series itself is barely notable, much less all of the albums in it. They have no extensive coverage in reliable sources and all of the articles are little more than a note of the artist, release date, and the tracklistings.
987:
notable, and yet I've just demonstrated that a Google News search has only 3 hits. So you're voluntarily choosing a very flawed argument to show lack of notability. Why is that? Not one of these artists' notability can possibly be in question. Most are DJs, and so a "compilation album" is in fact what they do for a living. Go look at
474:(Pet Shop Boys) etc. This is hardly a non-notable self released series, but one of the most successful mix-album series in dance music, and has received large amounts of coverage in sources as credible as the ones above. I don't assume bad faith on the part of the nominator, but there is no credible way that these albums fail
963:
Let's see...Wolf's Rain has 34 sources, all reliable. Its aired nearly worldwide, won multiple awards, critical acclaim, and has an award winning soundtrack (and note, that despite being award winning and easily more notable than half these CDs, it does NOT have a separate album article). And the one
706:
No, one could not take an axe to many of my articles, or even some. I actually create articles that meet our notability guidelines. The meerkat list is a featured list with extensive sourcing to back up its notability, and part of a featured topic. It is not one of a dozen little stub articles that
986:
You have thoroughly failed to comprehend the point, so I'll clarify a bit for you. Your assertion of lack of notability was based in part on the statement that "A google news search pulls up all of twelve possible hits for the entire series, mostly announcement type things." Fine, Wolf's Rain is
1014:
You have also failed to comprehend the point. I never said
Freeland himself isn't notable. That does NOT make every one of his albums notable, compilation or not. Its still a non-notable album that you have not demonstrated any notability for. You added one ref (repeating it doesn't make it more
804:
Are you saying that you have no intention of writing an AfD for the articles these other users have contributed? Because otherwise you appear to be deleting small quantities at a time so as to arouse the least interest in those who would want to keep these articles. Considering that the only
1290:
admit more notability than the Back to Mine series. If any of these albums is deleted, those should be deleted for the same reasons. It is only proper if we are to be consistent with the rules of notability as interpreted by
Collectonian. I'd love to hear an enumeration of "all aspects of
471:
1204:
Merge, then delete, because I see no reason to leave 20 redirects, either. There is some information in each of the album articles that should be preserved, so if there is a history issue with the GFDL, someone should merge the histories. In the end, no article under this name should
1271:
all of the series is important in the UK, its compatible to the "Now That's What I Call Music" for many stations and DJ. The albums were released by a label and they were released by legitimate musicians. I feel that deleting the articles is damaging to
Knowledge (XXG)'s music
1121:
albums, which were very popular in the UK... not sure how high each one charted, but I certainly remember the adverts in the
Underground station whenever a new one was released. These compilations were always hotly anticipated. Of course it should stay.
618:
Again, a SINGLE review from a music magazine does not establish notability at all, and it doesn't matter who compiled it. Again, the album must be notable on its own. And sticking in a forum posting quote really doesn't improve the article either. --
995:
if you're at all self-consistent, I assure you. It's a bit puzzling, though, that someone who spends so much time writing about esoteric subjects feels so compelled to delete the work of others for allegedly being insignificant. -
949:. There is no way DJ Kicks and Late Night Tales are much more (or less) "notable" (the most subjective and useless criteria on Knowledge (XXG)), or have received greatly more press coverage. They're at risk from deletionists too.
1246:
686:, I think we can spare some space for a compilation by a Grammy-award winning DJ. If there's not enough descriptive text right now, then such text can be added. And anyways, weren't you going to delete the entirety of the
1237:) are very popular in the UK, and generally receive reviews by the UK dance press (Mixmag, DJ Magazine, i-DJ etc) upon each release. Since the compilers of the albums are unquestionably notable, and considering that the
771:
Question my motives all you like. I nominated the ones in front of me that were all from a single series. I have no obligation to hunt down and nominate every last other similar series just because you want to use the
682:'s articles as well as being something insignificant, and yet most of us are capable of understanding that there are works that we don't appreciate and yet others do. If this place has room for 8000 words on a
752:
articles at the same time. Do you mean to have this debate on the smallest subsection and then delete the others one group at a time, so as to minimize the number of commenters opposed to the deletion? -
1141:
945:(such as the ones above), because fighting a determined deletionist is hard work. And then 6 months later I've seen things I did care about nominated and deleted, mostly on the strength of
496:
One single bit of coverage each do not make them notable. Significant coverage in multiple sources is required, and the notability of the artists does not confer to the album. --
122:
873:
Wolf's Rain notability is well established by
Knowledge (XXG) guidelines. Why not actually address the issue instead of continuing to attack other editors and articles? --
166:
161:
350:
345:
170:
89:
84:
904:
354:
212:
207:
93:
1287:
641:
And again, there is much more than a single example of coverage in reliable sources for each of these articles; you didn't do the requisite looking for sources
216:
153:
780:
is not a valid argument. And I stand corrected, you only created one, the one that caused a copyright alert that brought me to the page in the first place. --
604:
A Grammy-award winning DJ compiles an album, said album is reviewed in NME, and that's non-notable? Maybe someone else can share why they think this is so? -
258:
253:
337:
262:
76:
304:
299:
199:
1241:
of these albums is music by other notable artists, it seems churlish to delete these articles. Examples of reliable sources are mentioned above, more are
855:, does that mean it's non-notable and should be deleted? The lack of Google News search results is not an argument by any stretch of the imagination. -
454:. Contrary to above assertions, the artists involved qualify easily under WP:MUSIC, and these albums individually have received non-trivial coverage in;
308:
245:
291:
1242:
1123:
707:
have no other purpose than to let people throw up the track list for CDs, mirroring any retail site that sells it and completely violating
532:
Without real evidence of notability, and all of the articles actually showing it, then they still are unnotable and should be deleted. --
1070:
1028:
977:
923:
886:
793:
735:
632:
593:
545:
509:
392:
17:
832:
for people to come to this AfD, implying on other article talk pages that if they don't save this one, "theirs" will also be deleted
1015:
significant) to again, one review from a music magazine that likely reviews most CD releases. That is NOT significant coverage. --
805:
objection appears to be that there is not enough descriptive text, why not submit these articles for cleanup and not deletion? -
341:
80:
744:
If by "most, if not all" you mean "one". And I do question your motives for not submitting for deletion the entirety of the
683:
463:
1308:
1281:
1263:
1215:
1195:
1174:
1156:
1131:
1095:
1074:
1048:
1032:
1005:
981:
958:
927:
890:
864:
814:
797:
762:
739:
699:
654:
636:
613:
597:
571:
549:
527:
513:
487:
442:
421:
396:
249:
58:
946:
1165:
Series is notable, but there is no need for 20 articles consisting tracklists. Merge the 20 back into the series article.
1328:
157:
36:
333:
72:
64:
203:
562:
the evidence you claimed does not exist. Please be willing to change your opinion in the face of clear evidence. -
295:
149:
241:
777:
195:
1327:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1127:
954:
650:
523:
483:
467:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
287:
773:
716:
1064:
1022:
971:
917:
880:
787:
729:
626:
587:
539:
503:
386:
937:
Wolf's rain has a bloody good point. In the past, I've failed to stand up for articles that easily pass
852:
679:
459:
839:
and leaving messages for other editors of similar albums because they are likely to support his keep.
1277:
950:
646:
555:
519:
479:
1299:" which these articles so completely fail. Suspect we'll all be waiting for some time however. -
1118:
992:
829:
138:
1304:
1191:
1152:
1091:
1044:
1001:
860:
810:
758:
722:
Should also note that McCart42 is the creator of most, if not all, of the nominated articles. --
695:
609:
580:
One link per is not clear evidence of anything and notability still has not been established. --
567:
438:
1292:
712:
409:
130:
433:. Artist has been nominated for a Grammy, thus is notable. "same goes for song": What song? -
1058:
1016:
965:
911:
874:
781:
723:
620:
581:
533:
518:
Yes, and I only put up those links to illustrate a sample of the coverage, not to exhaust it.
497:
380:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1234:
749:
417:
1054:
942:
645:
by the deletion process, and now you seem too committed to deletion to admit any ground.
1273:
1257:
1083:
49:
1296:
938:
708:
475:
134:
1300:
1211:
1187:
1170:
1148:
1087:
1040:
997:
988:
856:
806:
754:
691:
605:
563:
434:
371:
325:
279:
233:
187:
110:
455:
851:
Since when is a Google News search criteria for determining notability? I find
1079:
144:
I am also nominating the following related pages for the above stated reasons:
413:
137:. Each of these is a series of individual "mix" albums from a series called "
1230:
1207:
1166:
745:
687:
554:
Or maybe they should be submitted for cleanup and not deletion, since
1286:
This is another good point: Not a one of the dozens of articles in
1321:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1053:
Sorry, but I don't see a forum posting as falling under
844:
842:
840:
837:
835:
833:
367:
363:
359:
321:
317:
313:
275:
271:
267:
229:
225:
221:
183:
179:
175:
117:
106:
102:
98:
1142:
list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions
408:: Artist doesn't qualify for any of the criteria of
678:. One could certainly take an axe to many of the
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1331:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
1288:List of Now That's What I Call Music! albums
1117:. Very much part of an important series of
905:list of Music-related deletion discussions
1140:: This debate has been included in the
903:: This debate has been included in the
828:McCart42 has appears to be engaged in
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1186:. Which is it: Delete or Merge? -
1057:. So my statement still stands. --
1229:This series of albums (along with
24:
129:Completely fails all aspects of
684:List of Meerkat Manor meerkats
1:
150:Back to Mine: Death in Vegas
1309:02:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
1282:00:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
1264:21:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
1216:18:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
1196:17:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
1175:16:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
1157:14:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
1132:15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
1096:17:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
1082:is a founder and editor of
1075:15:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
1049:14:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
1033:05:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
1006:04:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
982:00:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
959:21:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
928:14:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
891:17:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
865:16:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
815:15:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
798:14:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
776:claim to justify this set.
763:14:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
740:14:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
700:14:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
655:23:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
637:15:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
614:15:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
598:15:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
572:15:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
550:14:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
528:13:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
514:13:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
488:09:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
443:17:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
422:04:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
397:04:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
334:Back to Mine: Pet Shop Boys
73:Back to Mine: Adam Freeland
65:Back to Mine: Adam Freeland
59:22:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
1348:
196:Back to Mine: Roots Manuva
1253:, if you'd care to look.
456:The Independent on Sunday
1324:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
947:WP:OTHERSTUFFWASDELETED
288:Back to Mine: Faithless
853:3 hits for Wolf's Rain
412:, same goes for song.
242:Back to Mine: Röyksopp
556:User:Mostlyharmless
462:(Death in Vegas),
44:The result was
1159:
1145:
930:
908:
1339:
1326:
1235:Late Night Tales
1146:
1136:
1061:
1019:
968:
914:
909:
899:
877:
784:
750:Late Night Tales
726:
623:
584:
536:
500:
466:(Adam Freeland)
458:(Roots Manuva),
383:
375:
357:
329:
311:
283:
265:
237:
219:
191:
173:
120:
114:
96:
56:
34:
1347:
1346:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1338:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1329:deletion review
1322:
1260:
1059:
1017:
966:
912:
875:
782:
778:WP:ALLORNOTHING
724:
621:
582:
534:
498:
381:
348:
332:
302:
286:
256:
240:
210:
194:
164:
148:
116:
87:
71:
68:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1345:
1343:
1334:
1333:
1316:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1266:
1256:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1206:
1199:
1198:
1178:
1177:
1160:
1134:
1124:193.200.176.30
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1084:BBC Collective
1036:
1035:
1009:
1008:
951:Mostlyharmless
932:
931:
896:
895:
894:
893:
868:
867:
846:
822:
821:
820:
819:
818:
817:
801:
800:
766:
765:
720:
703:
702:
690:series too? -
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
647:Mostlyharmless
643:as is required
601:
600:
575:
574:
560:just shown you
520:Mostlyharmless
491:
490:
480:Mostlyharmless
448:
447:
446:
445:
425:
424:
401:
377:
376:
330:
284:
238:
192:
127:
126:
67:
62:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1344:
1332:
1330:
1325:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1310:
1306:
1302:
1298:
1294:
1289:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1270:
1267:
1265:
1262:
1259:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1225:
1224:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1176:
1172:
1168:
1164:
1161:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1120:
1116:
1113:
1112:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1072:
1069:
1066:
1062:
1056:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1037:
1034:
1030:
1027:
1024:
1020:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1007:
1003:
999:
994:
990:
989:Adam Freeland
985:
984:
983:
979:
976:
973:
969:
962:
961:
960:
956:
952:
948:
944:
940:
936:
935:
934:
933:
929:
925:
922:
919:
915:
906:
902:
898:
897:
892:
888:
885:
882:
878:
872:
871:
870:
869:
866:
862:
858:
854:
850:
847:
845:
843:
841:
838:
836:
834:
831:
827:
824:
823:
816:
812:
808:
803:
802:
799:
795:
792:
789:
785:
779:
775:
774:WP:OTHERSTUFF
770:
769:
768:
767:
764:
760:
756:
751:
747:
743:
742:
741:
737:
734:
731:
727:
721:
718:
717:WP:NOTCATALOG
714:
710:
705:
704:
701:
697:
693:
689:
685:
681:
680:AfD submitter
677:
674:
673:
656:
652:
648:
644:
640:
639:
638:
634:
631:
628:
624:
617:
616:
615:
611:
607:
603:
602:
599:
595:
592:
589:
585:
579:
578:
577:
576:
573:
569:
565:
561:
557:
553:
552:
551:
547:
544:
541:
537:
531:
530:
529:
525:
521:
517:
516:
515:
511:
508:
505:
501:
495:
494:
493:
492:
489:
485:
481:
477:
473:
470:(Faithless),
469:
468:The Telegraph
465:
461:
457:
453:
450:
449:
444:
440:
436:
432:
429:
428:
427:
426:
423:
419:
415:
411:
407:
404:
403:
402:
399:
398:
394:
391:
388:
384:
373:
369:
365:
361:
356:
352:
347:
343:
339:
335:
331:
327:
323:
319:
315:
310:
306:
301:
297:
293:
289:
285:
281:
277:
273:
269:
264:
260:
255:
251:
247:
243:
239:
235:
231:
227:
223:
218:
214:
209:
205:
201:
197:
193:
189:
185:
181:
177:
172:
168:
163:
159:
155:
151:
147:
146:
145:
142:
140:
136:
132:
124:
119:
112:
108:
104:
100:
95:
91:
86:
82:
78:
74:
70:
69:
66:
63:
61:
60:
57:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1323:
1320:
1315:
1268:
1254:
1238:
1226:
1183:
1162:
1137:
1119:Back to Mine
1114:
1080:Alastair Lee
1067:
1060:AnmaFinotera
1025:
1018:AnmaFinotera
993:Back to Mine
974:
967:AnmaFinotera
920:
913:AnmaFinotera
900:
883:
876:AnmaFinotera
848:
825:
790:
783:AnmaFinotera
732:
725:AnmaFinotera
675:
642:
629:
622:AnmaFinotera
590:
583:AnmaFinotera
559:
542:
535:AnmaFinotera
506:
499:AnmaFinotera
472:Boston Globe
460:The Guardian
451:
430:
405:
400:
389:
382:AnmaFinotera
378:
143:
139:Back to Mine
128:
52:
51:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1269:Strong Keep
1227:Strong Keep
1272:section.--
830:canvassing
1274:Gen. Quon
53:Wizardman
1301:McCart42
1293:WP:MUSIC
1231:DJ-Kicks
1188:McCart42
1149:McCart42
1088:McCart42
1071:contribs
1041:McCart42
1029:contribs
998:McCart42
978:contribs
924:contribs
887:contribs
857:McCart42
807:McCart42
794:contribs
755:McCart42
746:DJ-Kicks
736:contribs
713:WP:MUSIC
692:McCart42
688:DJ-Kicks
633:contribs
606:McCart42
594:contribs
564:McCart42
546:contribs
510:contribs
435:McCart42
410:WP:MUSIC
393:contribs
131:WP:MUSIC
123:View log
1239:content
1184:Comment
849:Comment
826:Comment
431:Comment
351:protect
346:history
305:protect
300:history
259:protect
254:history
213:protect
208:history
167:protect
162:history
90:protect
85:history
1255:sparkl
1205:exist.
1163:Delete
715:, and
406:Delete
355:delete
309:delete
263:delete
217:delete
171:delete
118:delete
94:delete
1055:WP:RS
943:WP:RS
414:Calor
372:views
364:watch
360:links
326:views
318:watch
314:links
280:views
272:watch
268:links
234:views
226:watch
222:links
188:views
180:watch
176:links
121:) – (
111:views
103:watch
99:links
16:<
1305:talk
1297:WP:N
1295:and
1278:talk
1251:here
1249:and
1247:here
1243:here
1233:and
1212:talk
1192:talk
1171:talk
1153:talk
1138:Note
1128:talk
1115:Keep
1092:talk
1065:talk
1045:talk
1023:talk
1002:talk
972:talk
955:talk
941:and
939:WP:V
918:talk
910:—--
901:Note
881:talk
861:talk
811:talk
788:talk
759:talk
748:and
730:talk
709:WP:N
696:talk
676:Keep
651:talk
627:talk
610:talk
588:talk
568:talk
558:has
540:talk
524:talk
504:talk
484:talk
476:WP:V
452:Keep
439:talk
418:talk
387:talk
368:logs
342:talk
338:edit
322:logs
296:talk
292:edit
276:logs
250:talk
246:edit
230:logs
204:talk
200:edit
184:logs
158:talk
154:edit
135:WP:N
133:and
107:logs
81:talk
77:edit
46:keep
1208:Kww
1167:Kww
1144:.
907:.
464:NME
379:--
1307:)
1280:)
1261:sm
1245:,
1214:)
1194:)
1173:)
1155:)
1130:)
1094:)
1073:)
1047:)
1031:)
1004:)
980:)
957:)
926:)
889:)
863:)
813:)
796:)
761:)
738:)
711:,
698:)
653:)
635:)
612:)
596:)
570:)
548:)
526:)
512:)
486:)
478:.
441:)
420:)
395:)
370:|
366:|
362:|
358:|
353:|
349:|
344:|
340:|
324:|
320:|
316:|
312:|
307:|
303:|
298:|
294:|
278:|
274:|
270:|
266:|
261:|
257:|
252:|
248:|
232:|
228:|
224:|
220:|
215:|
211:|
206:|
202:|
186:|
182:|
178:|
174:|
169:|
165:|
160:|
156:|
109:|
105:|
101:|
97:|
92:|
88:|
83:|
79:|
48:.
1303:(
1276:(
1258:!
1210:(
1190:(
1169:(
1151:(
1147:—
1126:(
1090:(
1068:·
1063:(
1043:(
1026:·
1021:(
1000:(
975:·
970:(
953:(
921:·
916:(
884:·
879:(
859:(
809:(
791:·
786:(
757:(
733:·
728:(
719:.
694:(
649:(
630:·
625:(
608:(
591:·
586:(
566:(
543:·
538:(
522:(
507:·
502:(
482:(
437:(
416:(
390:·
385:(
374:)
336:(
328:)
290:(
282:)
244:(
236:)
198:(
190:)
152:(
125:)
115:(
113:)
75:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.