Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WOW Hits

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 here. I note that Now That's What I Call Music!, which several people here have referred to, has an article for every album, and a better template to organize all of them. Now, perhaps that series is more notable than this one (it certainly is) and therefore should have individual album articles while this one doesn't, or maybe that series needs a deletion discussion here as well; I'm not sure, and not one to make that judgement based on what I've seen here. However, if the resulting article isn't too massive, it would be prudent to consider merging most or all of these entries, and perhaps after that, a new deletion discussion may proceed on any leftovers with a smaller focus. Grand master ka 11:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WOW Hits

These are all compilation albums, ~~and every article is unsourced. They are likely to remain unsourced,~~ because reliable third party sources don't usually write pieces about compilation albums. The musicians featured are notable people and the albums they create themselves are critically interesting as unique artistic creations; those original albums receive plenty of third party coverage to write an article from. But compilation albums, cobbled together from intellectual property already owned and previously released by the record labels, are not interesting or unique creations, so no one writes about them. Thus the lack of reliable sources. For the same reason that secondary sources don't bother to write about these albums, Wikipedia shouldn't cover them as a tertiary source, lest our coverage devolve into indiscriminate lists.

There are at least nine more of these that are still redlinked, and of course more will be released every year. None of the articles can be sourced for content expansion. Let's nip this in the bud before well meaning editors waste any more time editing these time-sinks.

Delete all. — coel acan — 03:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All: Violates WP:A. Chickyfuzz14^{(user talk)} 03:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and WP:A. Xdenizen 03:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. These seem to fall way short of WP:ATT and in any event Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I am unconvinced by the notability of compilation albums in of themselves no matter how notable the songs and artists they feature. WjBscribe 03:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I'mma chargin mah lazer!!! SHOOP DA WOOP!!!!! oh yeah, and WP:A. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except main article. It's a fairly long-running series with a number of notable artists that has had a decent sales record (I guess I need to dig up charting history, huh?), so a single article about the series, possibly with a list of the individual releases, would seem to be in order. The individual releases, however, are not notable and should be dumped. Realkyhick 06:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete all except main article~~ This does seem to have been a successful marketing concept, if nothing else, and a pretty big deal in the Xtian music biz. But we certainly don't need all these articles, at least without evidence that these charted majorly. Brianyoumans 07:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Keep all with a record of charting I see that most of these now have sources showing that they charted. I think those should be kept. Even a compilation album should probably be kept if it charted; that indicates a lot of sales. --Brianyoumans 21:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this "delete all except" stuff is tempting, but absent third party reliable sources we can't even produce a main article that meets WP:A. Where are these sources to write the main article from? Actually having some on hand might constitute a vote for keeping that one. Without the sources, these keep arguments contradict WP:A policy and must be ignored. — coel acan — 07:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the main article: This series is very famous and deserved at least a main article. These compilations contain lots of notable articles and the series is quite big. With your arguments, one could delete about 90% of the 1500 albums of the Category:Compilation albums!! -Sucrine ( ><> talk) 09:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm not sure that would be a bad thing.) But my argument boils down to nothing more than this: WP:A is policy and articles that don't adhere to that policy get deleted. If you can make the main article, WOW Hits, line up with WP:A policy, then that's an argument for keeping. Insisting that it "deserves" an article that nevertheless violates WP:A is not an argument but a plea for exceptions and pardons. — coel acan — 09:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all but the main article per Brianyoumans. I suggest doing the same thing with the "Now That's What I Call Music!" articles, no reason for the 50+ articles to exist when they are nothing but compilations of hit songs. TJ Spyke 10:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but the main article per above. The Evil Clown _{Please review me!} 13:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep all and boggle at this opposition. These are clearly all notable albums in their own, all having notable artists and songs on them, clearly passing WP:MUSIC. Most if not all albums have been on the billboard charts. If there are WP:A issues, then deal with those separately. AFD is not cleanup. Patstuart^talk·edits 14:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep all- if lack of sources is the problem, the solution is to source them. As per Patstuart's comments, they meet notability by having charted. WP:Music#Albums makes no specifications about compilation albums. The artists on these are still notable, which satisfies the album requirement. Wildyoda 17:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are not notable albums on their own. The artists, who are notable, did not work on these albums. They had nothing to do with their creation. These albums are not their creative endeavors. They are compiled by the companies who already own their previously released works. There's absolutely no limit to how many compilation albums these companies can produce, and it would not surprise me to learn that the artists received no compensation for these. Indeed some of them have probably forgotten that their songs are on these things, if their agents ever forwarded the memo anyway. Can you explain what is notable about a compilation album? Originals are notable for being unique artistic creations, something new that a person brings into the world. What is notable about the fact that record companies combine and rerelease to create the false appearance of something new and grab more money? That's just everyday greed; nothing notable or interesting about it. Nothing about these albums passes WP:MUSIC. The articles about the original songs and albums and the artists themselves pass notability. But a shuffled tracklisting is not further notable on its own. AFD is not cleanup, but the problem here is not only that they are unsourced, but unsourcable. Where is the reliable third party coverage of WOW Worship: Orange that we can expand an article with? There isn't any, because nobody but the record company ever cared to write about it. Musical critics have better things to do than promote rereleases that they already reported on the first time around. Focus your time and attention on the articles about the actual artists and songs, not this shiny repackaging. — coel acan — 18:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. So from what you just said, because we can't get any "sources" on WOW Worship Orange, we should delete them all. Perhaps you too could read WP:ALLORNOTHING. At very least, if the individual albums do not merit inclusion (which they do), then the whole series does (I guarantee it's been written about, though the library's closing soon and I've no time to prove it). Patstuart^talk·edits 20:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:ALLORNOTHING doesn't apply here. I gave WOW Worship Orange as one example; perhaps I should have made that clearer. The status of that particular album obviously doesn't impinge upon the others. But the others have the same problem as that one does. Each of them needs Attribution, and that is policy, non-negotiable. In addition, I believe that all of the separate albums fail the Notability guideline: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject." Finally, as a separate matter, I believe the main article, WOW Hits, is non-notable in general because the series is not the creation of the artists that are republished in it, and without new creative material, having articles about compilations is functionally no different than Wikipedia articles about what WDOD 96.5 FM played last Thursday between 9:00 and 10:00 AM. Indulge me for a moment. Here we have a compilation series: 25 Symphony Favorites, 25 Romantic Favorites, 25 Mozart Favorites, 25 Beethoven Favorites. The company that makes these, Vox Cameo Classics, makes many more. By your reasoning, because all the artists and most of the songs on these albums are notable, the compilations themselves are notable and we should have articles about them. And, indeed, since this is a series, we should have a "25 Favorites by Vox Cameo Classics" article for the series. But this is absurd. There's nothing notable about the fact that a record company repackaged a shuffle playlist. There's nothing notable about the fact that they do it all the time under the title "WOW". — coel acan — 22:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All you have done is stated your own personal POV using totally flawed logic. This is nothing at all like having an article about what a radio station played for a certain period of time. It is an actual cd release that people buy in stores, it charted and it is considered a Compilation album and the guidlines for WP:MUSIC apply for all albums reguardless of if it is a compilation or not. If notable artists appear on it then it is worthy of inclusion.--E tac 08:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all the articles It is pretty stupid to delete all these when clearly they exist. The artists didn't "work" on them, but yet artists don't work on soundtracks or other compilations albums that are listed on wikipedia, it would be stupid to delete one series and not delete all the other series. As for the WOW Christmas and Aqua, most of the songs on these albums are not repackaged, they are exclusive to the series and available nowhere else. WOW Hits, sure, those are available on the artists albums, but Worship and and Christmas are not. How can an album not be "notable" even though it's clearly widely available in stores and is a popular series? Keep them all, even the album pages because only WOW Hits has only reused tracks, wikipedia is an information site correct? You can't list the albums but not give information. Might as well not list the albums at all then. It descriminatory to delete just WOW series but no other compilations, such as the Now series.Kevin87 19:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you need to read WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING, WP:ALLORNOTHING and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The mere fact that these exist does not mean we need to write articles about them. The fact that other compilations are not yet or currently up for deletion doesn't mean we shouldn't delete these first. You're not actually making arguments for keeping, you're asking for us to make an exception for these articles and to not apply WP:A policy to them. If the Christmas and Aqua albums have original recordings, that might be an argument for keeping just those, but only if it can be reliably attributed. I don't see that happening yet. — coel acan — 20:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep All Bestselling albums. If Now That's What I Call Music! belongs, so do these. Also, a merge wouldn't work, it would be too long. Tim Long 06:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read any of the comments? There is nothing notable about these albums. The record company just slaps a bunch of songs that have already been released together and ship them out (so about 1 days work and like $0.25 to make). TJ Spyke 23:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - When you get an album that peaks in the 30s of The Billboard 200, I wonder if you'll think it's notable. Tim Long 06:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So because it is a compilation album that makes it non-notable? That seems like pretty flawed logic to me. If that is the case then Now That's What I Call Music! should be deleted as well.--E tac 07:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would say that indeed if an album is a compilation album, it is not automatically notable no matter whose songs are on it. There had better be something else extra darn special on top of all that for a compilation album to stick around. I believe that my proposed "25 Mozart Favorites" and other "Vox Cameo Classics" albums would not be notable, and these WOW albums are no different. If you feel that all the separate Now That's What I Call Music! albums should be deleted you should certainly nominate them for AFD and you can count on my support. But as you already pointed out earlier, WP:ALLORNOTHING doesn't count in discussion of these albums. — coel acan — 04:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. No attribution given to assert that these particular compilations are notable. If reliable sources are found I will reverse my decision, but as these articles have been around without any such sourcing for almost two years I am skeptical any will be found. — Krimpet (talk/review) 04:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to main WOW article, as there's actually a remote possibility that something substantial and/or worthwhile can be said about the series as a whole. a rule of thumb I'd personally have for compilation albums is: "Did any artist 'break it big', or experience a significant change in his or her career, as a direct result of his or her song being included in this compilation/soundtrack/retrospective/whatever". In this case, the answer is "no". Series is notable, series deserves an article. Individual albums are hardly different from each other (if you'll excuse my over-generalization), and will never be anything but stubs. So, merge. If we absolutely must humor the inclusionists further, dump the list to List of albums in the WOW series or some such. If someone really needs to find out a track listening for the heaven-sent WOW Jesus God Aqua 51 Neo, there's All Music. --Action Jackson IV 05:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good job at remaining civil and showing everyone you aren't biased.--E tac 08:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even better job at WP:AGF, champ. Even if I hate the WOW series ("loath" is actually a better word, but I digress), that hardly influences my opinion on the encyclopedic merit of these articles. For example, while new age woo-woo repulses me about as much as the WOW series, check the AfD for Orgone. Thanks! --Action Jackson IV 23:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Encyclopedic merit? Maybe you should check up on WP:MUSIC as they obviously do merit inclusion based on that policy for albums. I hate to be the one to fill you on this, but albums are what this discussion is about. Maybe if it wasn't the "heaven-sent WOW Jesus God Aqua 51 Neo (whatever that means)" albums your personal point of view on this subject would be different.--E tac 01:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am on WP:MUSIC right now and see absolutely nothing concerning compilations - unless you take the rather interesting leap of faith whereupon "WOW" is considered the notable artist, and each individual album is considered an album by that artist. But congratulations, your argument has worn me down - I must be completely pig-headed and biased, and part of the vast liberal media conspiracy out to take the Christ out of Christmas. Still voting Delete, though, for the same reasons as I originally outlined. --Action Jackson IV 01:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to main WOW article per User:Action Jackson IV's rationale. You took the words right out of my mouth! LaMenta3 06:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep How is this compilation not notable? I have seen it advertized on tv and you can buy them at any Target, Walmart, or Best Buy. Couldn't the albums themselves be considered or source, perhaps the listing of them at Amazon.com or something? Also Wikipedia's policy on albums states that if the artists on the album are notable then the album itself should be considered such, it doesn't make exceptions for compilation albums. Why is this simple general consensus rule being ignored? --E tac 07:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to main WOW article. I can think of absolutely no good reason why any of these should have their own article. Ford MF 11:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are albums that feature notable artists, end of discussion.--E tac 20:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all unless someone can find a source that says these compilations are notable in their own right; not just by association. Compilation albums are just a business move - the producer pays for the rights to the songs in hopes of making a profit by putting them together and selling them. How is that notable? --Mus Musculus 17:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is they are still albums and the feature notable acts so therefore according to WP:MUSIC they are notable. What you said would go for any other greatest hits album by any band as the bands themselves often want no part in them and they are just to make money. So what if an album is a compilation album, if it contains notable artists it is notable. Everyone who has stated reasons here for not having them is merely stating a personal opinion and is clearly disreguarding the policy established by WP:MUSIC which makes no exceptions for greatest hits or compilation albums.--E tac 20:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what AfD is for - personal opinion and consensus. If there was a clear-cut policy violation, the article would be speedied. My opinion is that compilation albums that do not involve the artists are not notable unless citations prove they are. Greatest hits albums are not the same thing because the artist typically determines what songs appear on them, etc. --Mus Musculus 02:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if your only argument is that you don't think it is notable without any policy to back it up you really shouldn't bother with this discussion. The albums clearly pass WP:MUSIC so using your personal opinon as reason for it's deletion is rather lame. Yes you are also correct that greatest hits albums are totally compiled by the band and the label has nothing to do with or say about what goes on those because every band wants to release a greatest hits album and have the rest of their work to be overlooked and only their radio hits be heard..... How can you say these didn't involve the artists at all? Do you have a citation for that? Because I am willing to bet at some level they were.--E tac 03:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your sarcasm and name-calling don't do anything for your credibility. At any rate, the burden is on the article to prove it is notable in its own right. Where are the citations stating that these particular compilations are notable? --Mus Musculus 21:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name calling? Where? Acusing me of things I did not do does not do much for your credibility. If you bothered to check the articles youd see that pretty much all of them have charted on a national chart and it is sourced, but you are more worried about replying to me then you are about the issue at hand. If that isn't enough for you then go walk into your local Target store and I am sure you will see several of these albums on the shelves. I suppose having a major retail store carry the album shows nothing, right?--E tac 22:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By this logic, the CD-R I burned for my roommate's girlfriend, featuring such notable artists as Prince, KMFDM, and others, deserves a mention. After all - notable artists. --Action Jackson IV 01:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

from E Tac just above: "...pretty much all of them have charted on a national chart and it is sourced..." If you can meet that same standard of notability, by all means, go ahead. --Ybbor ^T 01:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um no, that is called piracy. Try getting the artists permission and then comercially distributing the album in some form, then your album might have some notability. --E tac 02:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As anyone in the Christian music scene will tell you the WoW albums are one of the main pinnacles of Christian music. Deleting the reference to these would be similar to deleting references to the hugo awards or science fiction publication, or readers digest compact editions of books. They are compilations of notable pieces of art in a certain field.

(my opinion)

Danielcoulbourne

[reply]

Keep main article, Christmas, Worship, and Hymns (at least) because I think they deserve the pages and it's descrimination against Christian music when you have others series that are just like it, but not Christian. I can understand not having pages for the WOW Hits albums due to reused songs not exclusive to the albums but the WOW Christmas, WOW Worship, and WOW Hymns pages have exclusive recordings. If you want notability, what does it take? Nearly every artist on the WOW albums are notable, the series is constantly featured in Christian magazines (WOW Hits 2007 had their own bonus magazine with a recent issue of CCM Magazine which included an ad for WOW Hymns), they have television advertisements, in-store advertisements at all major and small chains that sell Christian music, and more. Is that not enough? --Mister Pine 06:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP all articles. I am puzzled by this AFD. I haven't seen an AFD this far in left field for around a year. They are a cornerstone of WikiProject Contemporary Music. The artists are highly notable. They all have reviews on allmusic.com. Ample reliable sources, including allmusic.com, jesusfreakhideout.com, cmcentral.com, amazon.com, etc. have reviews on the articles. Just because these reliable sources haven't been added to the articles is not reason to delete, but reason to mark them so members of the WikiProject can source them. I see no reason why a compilation CDs or soundtracks should not be included in Wikipedia. Royalbroil^T : C 12:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also check the album articles because I have sourced about 90 percent of them.--E tac 12:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I request that the articles all be placed in my personal sandbox User:Royalbroil/Sandbox if this the result is delete. I don't have a significant amount of time to source them all now, as school takes priority, but I WILL ensure that they will become sourced. Also, ALLORNOTHING is an essay, so it is the opinion of several editors. I don't think that it applies in this case, as they each can be sourced independently. Royalbroil^T : C 12:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Kepp all articles. This is a crazy deletion page. These cds are the top selling cd's in their genre, CCM, and are very important pages. Unless there are no cd pages that are allowed on wikipedia, these must stay. Casey14 21:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All (except WOW Number Ones). All except the one have sources indicating that they have reached the billboard top 200, a large majority in the top 100, and a fair amount in the to 50, which would seem to achieve notability. As stated by Wildyoda, WP:MUSIC#Albums states that an "if the musician or ensemble that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." All these albums have notable bands, and no distinction is made about compilation albums. --Ybbor ^T 21:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep all articles - This is a very popular series, and, though the WOW Hits don't have any exclusive songs, the WOW Worships and Christmases (and I think Gospels) do have songs exclusive to those CDs. Jesussaves (talk -- contribs) 21:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced the fact that many have sold is enough. Compilations often sell well- they contain famous songs by famous people- but there needs to be something special about the compilations themselves for Wikipedia to need articles about them (and especially for an article about each and every CD). And we need independent reliable sources to confirm that they are in of themselves important. WjBscribe 04:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria #1 for musicians according to WP:MUSIC is "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart." The albums are QUITE special to the Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) genre. Almost all of the songs from the Green Christmas album were played a lot this past Christmas on my local CCM radio station. I have nearly completed going through the articles and have provided multiple sources including reviews and billboard magazine citations. Royalbroil^T : C 04:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's saying that the artists aren't notable enough to have their own articles. I don't see anyone here saying that the songs aren't notable enough to have their own articles either. But the songs were originally on other albums. Those original creations are the ones that are notable because notable artists worked on them. Charting suggests that people are notable because we they are already people; the charting just lets us know that they are sufficiently in the public eye to make an article worthwhile. People, of course, are special. An album, though, isn't inherently so. It might be if it's an original work. But a reprint? — coel acan — 04:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding WP:MUSIC: It's important not to read too much into this notability page. First of all, it's a guideline, not a policy. We can work around it and completely outside of it, with no adverse consequences. WP:MUSIC also reminds us: "meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." The pertinent section, on albums, notes it "is somewhat controversial" (which is to say that it's more controversial than notability in general, which is always controversial). The albums section then says, "if the musician or ensemble that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability" (emphasis mine). That's a particular distinction. The artists here did not make these albums. They weren't involved in the production. Their creative process was already over when these albums were compiled by the marketing divisions of the record company. So all we get out of WP:MUSIC is this: a guideline, which we don't have to follow, which says it doesn't mean the articles must be kept, and says the relevant section is especially controversial, doesn't even apply because the notable artists didn't make these albums. So don't read too much into it. I believe the pertinent question is rather, "why would albums not even created by notable artists be notable on their own?" And I don't believe this has been answered. — coel acan — 04:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(many edit conflicts later)*1) I realize that WP:MUSIC is a guideline. That doesn't mean that I can't or shouldn't use it a debate, in fact can and should be generally used as a starting basis for a debate. I am not convinced that you have proven why it shouldn't apply in this case. If you throw out WP:MUSIC, then all that you have left is people's feelings, which is ILIKEIT or IDISLIKEIT. Wikipedia is not about being a popularity contest.

2) If we use your album option, then I disagree with your interpretation of several words. Let's revisit the key sentence if the musician or ensemble that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability. The term "ensemble": If you look [1] at yahoo's definition, I believe that either definition 1c: "A group of musicians, singers, dancers, or actors who perform together" or 2: "A work for two or more vocalists or instrumentalists." would apply. Either definition state the musicians, not the compilers of the CDs are the ensemble. I disagree with your usage of the word "maker." The maker of an album is the artists that made the each of the individual tracks. The album could not be made without using their tracks. So what if the artists made the tracks earlier and not specifically for this CD? Some of these tracks were actually specifically made for the CD. The guideline doesn't talk about the compilers of the album. Royalbroil^T : C 05:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we admit that WP:MUSIC has nothing to say here, it's true that we are left with everyone's feelings and various arguments. You act like this is a problem. How do you think guidelines get made in the first place? People bring their opinions to the table and discussion works toward a consensus or at least something resembling a consensus. This is normal and desirable. What people haven't done here is simply state "I don't like it". The arguments for deletion have been argued extensively from several points of view. The argument that only original works matter seems a strong one that Wikipedia carries throughout many other areas, and the fact that you don't agree with this argument does not reduce it to simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Your characterization of this argument as WP:AADD is unfounded. Such an argument would play very well on any notability talk page, and there's no reason why it shouldn't be aired here. You're flat wrong about what an ensemble is. An ensemble plays together, in the same room. An ensemble is a band. It is not a bunch of bands playing unrelated tracks in different studios. If this is the first time you've encountered the word, you might be legitimately confused, but it is really not open to the interpretation you are trying to ascribe it. You say "The maker of an album is the artists that made the each of the individual tracks", but no, that's the makers of the songs. Tupac Shakur did not make R U Still Down? (Remember Me), his first (of six so far) posthumous album. The page for the album recognizes this, that the album was created without Tupac's creative input. That's the important distinction. Of course, that album contained new tracks, unlike these. But these albums were created without the involvement of the artists' creative input. You may be unfamiliar with how the recordning industry works. But these albums can be created without the artists even being informed of them, depending on their contracts. In many cases, they do not have to sign off on their work being included here. Those transactions take place entirely over the artists' heads. That's not creative input. I've seen it being said that some tracks were made exclusively for certain particular CDs here, like the green Christmas album. However, this has still not been cited, and absent a reliable citation, that's still lacking WP:ATT and no actual indication of notability. — coel acan — 11:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hopefully these articles will be kept as most of the reasoning I am seeing here against there inclusion would fall under Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. You are correct that WP:MUSIC does not always have to be followed but normally if the decision is going to be made to remove something that meets the criteria there should be several good reasons why, the same would go for including something that doesn't meet any of the criteria. Your sole argument is that it is a compilation album that feautures previously released songs from different artists. You fail to give any other reasoning at all. I'll play your game and we will just totally forget WP:MUSIC(which these albums clearly meet the criteria of) for a second. You cannot deny the cultural impact of this series. The compilations can be purchased at numerous major retail stores, I am sure any other product that is available in numerous major retail stores such as the The Simpsons DVDs (didn't those already air originally on TV and thus the DVD's are just a compilation of episodes sold just to make money) would be considered culturally signifigant and worthy of inclusion here on Wikipedia. Also you seem to be ignoring the fact that most of these albums have charted in the upper half of Billboard 200 chart and are sourced as such on their pages, how is that for standing on their own? The fact that they did chart so well proves that they would be of interest to many music enthusiats and they would want to read about them. Also these albums show what songs were considered to be the most popular CCM songs for the year of each individual release and are notable in that aspect as well. Do you have anything on these compilations at all that merits deletion except for the fact that you don't feel they are notable because they are compilations. You have stood by that despite evidence produced to the contrary and you haven't really elaborated on why that should disscount them from inclusion, so if possible could you please do so?--E tac 05:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot there for me to answer. Before I go futher, I have a question. It seems to me that your reading of WP:MUSIC would support having an article for 25 Symphony Favorites. Am I correct? — coel acan — 05:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, if it was determined that any the orchestras that performed the songs were determined to be notable. I am sure many music readers would like to be informed about the different recordings of classical music that are out there. I don't see how it would really be any different than a Tribute album, which there are many that have articles here on wikipedia.--E tac 06:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: considering that the "delete all" !voters, including myself, are in favor of deleting all the articles including the main article, and many other !voters are in favor of deleting (or in some cases merging) all the articles except the main article, it appears there is at least a consensus for the pruning of those articles. A look at the history of WOW Hits shows that Sucrine has managed to make that article summarize these others, but without anything that appears to be copied from those articles. There would be no licensing-based need for redirecting instead of deletion. I may continue to argue for the deletion of WOW Hits as well, but if that is not possible I hope the "middle" option will be considered as well. — coel acan — 11:08, 22 March 2007 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WOW Hits

WOW Hits

Navigation menu

Search