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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

20th Century Masters: The Millennium Collection: The Best of Uriah Heep

[edit]

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

Deprodded based on Allmusic review. However I have found absolutely nothing else about this album in any sources. It didn't chart, wasn't certified and it contains no new material. Precedent is that an Allmusic review isn't enough if no other sources exist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Allmusic review but no other secondary sources to make the album notable. Mattg82 (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - It has received a basic review from AllMusic and in my opinion (per precedent at WP:ALBUMS) that confers a basic amount of notability for inclusion in this encyclopedic project. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete allmusic attempts to live up to its name: be a record of ALL music. If inclusion of a short review there meant it was notable for wikipedia, wikipedia would be inundated with albums otherwise non-notable. A notable artist's discography should be complete. That doesn't mean each compilation album needs an article. Wickedjacob (talk) 07:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete owing to a lack of multiple, reliable, secondary sources to meet the general inclusion criteria. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2011 (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.