Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Very Best of Andy Gibb

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 redirect to Andy Gibb#Discography. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Very Best of Andy Gibb

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating on behalf of an unregistered user, their reasoning follows Beeblebrox (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC):[reply]

“Does not appear to meet WP:NALBUM (all coverage seems to be press releases) and album notability is not inherited: this can even be seen in the article: one source is the press release and the other doesn't even mention the album. It also does not have significant and independent coverage (i.e. press releases and websites which sell the album [all that could be found on google] aren't either significant nor independent). Might be WP:TOOSOON, or might just not be notable - a redirect would do better. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 6:37 am, Today (UTC−8)”

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 19:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NALBUM specifically states Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article. So why nominate it for deletion when merging/redirecting is possible? Regards So Why 07:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I propose a redirect, but I felt such a move was too bold, especially on a recently created article, hence the AfD. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [!vote added for clarity by another editor] There are so many album pages by lesser known artists with much less information out there. This is an official release by a pretty large record company. I don't see why it would be deleted. Lou72JG (talk)

That is a textbook example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And anyway, it is not the quality of the article which counts but its notability. Maybe, in due time, there will be enough coverage, but so far the only thing I can find is press releases or sales websites, so not notable. Also, the fact that there might be other non-deleted non-notable pages is not a reason to keep this one (i.e. in addition to being invalid per WP policy, the argument also remarkably lacks pertinence). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am finding coverage, such as here and here. Rlendog (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those are not much more than track listings, and one of them edges on being promotional. They also share much info in common with the press release about the album - different sources repeating substantially the same things about something fails to establish notability per WP:109PAPERS. Also, the fact there seem to be only coverage of the release of the album strongly suggests this is just "routine coverage". To be notable, the album would need to have received "significant coverage" over a sustained period, not track listings or press releases which date to two spontaneous events (the announcement and the release). As I said, this might just be a case of WP:TOOSOON. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The articles have more than track listings. Rlendog (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Not much more" - they basically repeat the same info as in the press release. Also, the first of those sources is basically a detailed "track listing", I quote: "The 15-track collection includes all three of his US No. 1 singles" "The three further US top ten hits that followed that sequence" "All but two of the tracks on the retrospective are taken from Gibb’s three big-selling studio albums", and it then goes on to list them. Idem for the other link, "The album includes the singer's three chart-topping singles" "In addition, the compilation features". 198.84.253.202 (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Andy Gibb#Discography - none of the sources listed so far are sufficient (they're either directories or promotional), and I doubt such sources exist. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Andy Gibb, without prejudice to recreation if the album gets some independent coverage. Keep the categories, because those are useful navigational tools. WP:TOOSOON at best; fails WP:NALBUM. Narky Blert (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Andy Gibb#Discography - while personally as a music lover I tend to lean inclusionist, WP:NALBUM is quite clear - there's limited independent coverage, not enough to demonstrate notability. If this were an unknown company with less of an emotional attachment from fans, consensus would be easier. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.