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 TLC discography#Video albums. Black Kite (talk) 11:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oooooooohhh... On the Video Tip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. This album did not chart and it was not discussed by multiple secondary sources. Some references are cited but they do not support the assertion that the album charted. Binksternet (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It did chart!! #9 in Billboard--88marcus (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Meets WP:NALBUM.--88marcus (talk) 02:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, Top 10 chart entry; this is not a good nomination - David Gerard (talk) 09:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to TLC discography#Video albums. Charting in and of itself does not make a release notable. Actual coverage, where the video is discussed, is required. The chart position and source can simply be merged to the discography page as there is no other info that can be imparted from this article. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm OK with this - having the redirect is important (the presumption is that something that charted is something people might look for), but the discography is a perfectly good place for the information on its chart placing, the only notable thing about it - David Gerard (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to TLC_discography#Video_albums where it's already discussed; this compilation album does not appear to have garnered individual coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to TLC discography#Video albums. All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.^WP:NALBUM Charting does not imply notability; charting only indicates that it may be notable. Without significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject the recording is not presumed to be notable. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - simply charting is not sufficient by itself to satisfy WP:NALBUM. Those editors stating that charting meets the guideline have missed the very start of it which states that coverage in independent reliable sources is also needed. Whpq (talk) 00:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Meets WP:NALBUM.--88marcus (talk) 01:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duplicate !vote stricken. Also,you have not addressed the lack of coverage required in the guideline you are asserting is met. --Whpq (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep charted top 10 in the US, notable enough. Will deleting this really make the encyclopedia better? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable enough implies it meets notability criteria. It does not. We improve the encyclopedia by ensuring that we meet the minimum requirements for a standalone article. Those minimums have been agreed through consensus and documented in WP:NALBUM. --Whpq (talk) 10:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep well over the bar for the relevant SNG. Editorially, merging might be the right call, but from an AfD perspective, it more than meets our inclusion guidelines. Hobit (talk) 12:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is it "well over the bar" when the cited guideline asks for significant coverage in reliable sources and the article has none? -- Whpq (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • A fine point. I read that twice and didn't see it at the top there. Merge seems like the policy-compliant solution for now (until additional coverage should get found, I can only find one book and I can't tell what amount of coverage it has...). Hobit (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2016 (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.