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 Dinah Shore. "Keep" arguments are WP:EFFORT. If you would like to argue that Wikipedia should be more inclusive, then propose it on a project talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For Sentimental Reasons (Dinah Shore/ASV album)

[edit]

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

Prodded for lack of sources and notability. Deprodder added "sources" from Filmbug (doesn't look reliable) and CMT (reliable) that are literally no more than directory listings. A directory listing doesn't cut it. Precedent is that compilation albums have to assert individual notability, which these do not — there are literally no third party sources about either one. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, this kind of proposed deletion is one reason I feel like quitting Wikipedia editing entirely. The definition of "reliable source" as it is given strictly is satisfied by just about nothing on the Web; what would qualify as a reliable source for just about any album that would satisfy TPH, I can't imagine. And, notability, again, is something that is hard to assert. These two concepts, "reliable source" and "notability" are the death of the Wikipedia I used to love. Why not simply propose deletion for all albums? -- BRG (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What would qualify as a reliable source is a review in Allmusic or some other reliable review site. I don't know why you think I want everything deleted. You're out of your freaking mind, and you're jumping to conclusions. I have no idea how you think that the "wikipedia you used to love" ever accepted articles on anything and everything. I've been here since December 2005 and it took me maybe a couple months to figure out that I can't cite an article to someone's personal site on Angelfire, nor should I make an article on an album if I know literally nothing about it save for the tracklist. All I hear from your argument is "bawwwwww, Hammer's a meanie, he tagged my awticwe for dewetion... bawwwww!" Grow up already, for crying out loud. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not "bawwwwww, Hammer's a meanie, he tagged my awticwe for dewetion... bawwwww!" It's simply THIS. In 2003, when first started editing on Wikipedia, NOBODY ever cared whether an article was sourced or not. And the criterion was not "notability" according to some formalistic definition, but whether someone would be likely to want to read the article. Sources got put in occasionally, but nobody would ever actually delete an article because it was not sourced; they'd find a source if they could. And certainly, reliability was never an issue -- in fact, 99% of the sources given even today, I am quite sure, would not technically qualify as "reliable" under the definition that is current now.

I have been editing on Wikipedia since 2003 -- thousands, probably tens of thousands of edits. It used to be fun. I have made hardly any edits in the past year because of challenges like this one. Which would you like to see, a Wikipedia that died because nobody wants to edit it any more or one which has a few articles on subjects you deem not sufficiently notable, with sources that don't qualify as reliable under the stupid restrictions that have been put in in recent years?

And my complaint is not just that my article is up for deletion; it is that anything that has value is put up for deletion. The genius of Wikipedia used to be that "anyone could edit," but if some sources are not deemed "reliable" Wikipedia is differentiating between sources in a way it does not differentiate between editors. If anyone can edit a Wikipedia article, anyone should be able to create a Website that can be cited -- the criterion for both being that they have knowledge about the subject or of where material can be found about it.

Notability, supposedly, has rules defining it, but these rules were never put before all the editors in a vote: only a few activists formulated them. To me, any subject is notable if more people than the creator and his/her personal friends might be interested in it.

Perhaps I can't win on this, but the big loser is Wikipedia, which has begun to die ever since these twin viruses of "notability" and "source reliability" have been introduced. -- BRG (talk) 10:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I only found this article because of the AFD. Dinah in the 1940's was an amazingly popular singer, in crossover blues/jazz/pop, with many hit records. I will make it a point to buy this album. Somehow a compilation of hit songs by a major recording artist ought to be notable. If not, then perhaps the guideline needs tweaking. What exactly is the applicable guideline, and how does this album score on it? Edison (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NALBUMS is the guideline you're looking for:

"All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In general, if the musician or ensemble is notable, and if the album in question has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources, then their officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting."

Per WP:OUTCOMES, though, compilations are far less likely to be notable unless they charted and/or were extensively reviewed; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Hits (Blue Öyster Cult album). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 6 June 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) 00:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per BRG. I agree that excessive deletion nominations are hugely damaging to wikipedia. As the board recently noted, the number of contributors is going down, and this is the projects worst problem, but it is only to be expected when well-meaning and harmless articles are destroyed. Alex Middleton (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can discover no substantive treatment of this album in reliable sources. Many, many Shore compilations have been released, and there's nothing to show that this one is notable. Deor (talk) 02:56, 13 June 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case my comment was not recorded as a vote to Keep, let me indicate it as such. There clearly is no big interest one way or the other — two people, Ten Pound Hammer and Deor, want to delete it; two, Alex Middleton and myself, want to keep it, and one, Edison, makes a comment which I would also consider as favorable to keeping it. But five comments in two weeks hardly evinces much interest in the disposition of this, and considering that the are only two of those five advocating deletion, I think this would indicate keeping it. What is necessary to take this proposal off the table? -- BRG (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if you gave an actual policy-based reason for keeping it or were able to supply reliable sources to establish the notability of the compilation, your case would be stronger. You may want to read WP:DISCUSSAFD, which points out that these discussions are decided not by majority vote but by the relevancy of the arguments. "These two concepts, 'reliable source' and 'notability' are the death of the Wikipedia I used to love" isn't much of an argument. Deor (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the point has been better made by Alex Middleton:

[E]xcessive deletion nominations are hugely damaging to [W]ikipedia. As the board recently noted, the number of contributors is going down, and this is the projects worst problem, but it is only to be expected when well-meaning and harmless articles are destroyed.

The fact is, I believe I'm the kind of person Wikipedia wants as an editor; I've been on the project since 2003, with thousands of edits, but for the last year or so, I've made very few edits. Why? Because I've just gotten fed up with having to defend the notability of my subjects or the reliability of my sources. I can certainly speak for a lot of other editors who happily improved Wikipedia over the years, but are no longer very much involved.

You ask for "an actual policy-based reason"; my point is actually that the policy is the problem. People like you are killing Wikipedia, rather than helping it.-- BRG (talk) 10:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And your tl;dr filibustering is helping... how? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is 1 reference and the recording of For Sentimental Reasons is mentioned at (I Love You) For Sentimental Reasons. If any other of the recordings are well-known they can also be noted on the original song's page. I don't believe this album overall is notable enough for its own article.--EdwardZhao (talk) 02:50, 25 June 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.