Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3 CD Collector's Set (Rihanna album) (2nd nomination)

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 Keep WilyD 10:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3 CD Collector's Set (Rihanna album) (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)

Delete - per WP:NALBUMS. This article was previously deleted, recreated and a second AfD found no consensus (an editor claimed that the article was to be expanded, but no such work has taken place). This article is comprised of three track listing from three albums which have pre-existing Wikipedia articles. The bulk of the "Background" section is pure WP:PUFFERY as it contains information solely relating to the production of the three seperate albums (none of the sources mention this 3CD set) and this violates WP:SYNTH. We have just one verifiable, reliable and independent source that relates to the album directly; an announcement of the release that says "if the music isn’t enough to convince you, the exclusive topless poster may be worth the price alone". This source fails WP:ROUTINE and shows that the article does not have the multiple independent sources that are required to demonstrate notability. Because its three constituent albums are notable does not mean that the compilation in itself is notable per WP:NOTINHERITED. Editors should note that album charting is not a requisite for notability. A sentence along the lines of "In December 2009, this album X was included in a compilation release alongside albums Y and Z, reaching number 80 in the US R&B Album charts" can be added to Good Girl Gone Bad, Music of the Sun and A Girl like Me (Rihanna album) if needs be. SplashScreen (talk) 00:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep as this nomination is obviously a sequel of the one that nearly happened and people agreed that this article indeed should be kept. Also per all my comments there. — Tomica (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfDs were closed with 'Delete' and 'No consensus'; there is not precedent or consensus to keep this article. That the article should be kept because of previous AfDs is against WP:NOTAGAIN. SplashScreen (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the same reason I !voted keep in the other nomination. P.S. SplashScreen, I formally invite you to not reply to my comment. Anything you say will be completely ignored. You are the one requesting an IBAN against both Tomica and I, so why are you still interacting with either of us? Statυs (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the above user is playing WP:ICANTHEARYOU, I'm sure he'll be rather apathetic about me indicating that his argument fails WP:NOTAGAIN. On Wikipedia, decisions are made through WP:CONSENSUS. This often involves discussion and, if a user does not want to partake in discussion with other editors, they should not enter into AfDs in which those editors are present. SplashScreen (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No reasong to delete. The fact that it charted and was mentioned in the media is enough. Also, the first time it was deleted only one user voted. The second time, no consensus was reached. Regards. —Hahc21 21:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:NOTAGAIN decrees that an article should not be kept simply because previous AfDs have (or, in this case, have not) come to that conclusion - consensus can change. You are also wrong in the fact that charting or being "mentioned in the media" makes a song notable - WP:NALBUMS makes no mention of charting as a requisite of notability and said coverage needs to be multiple, verifiable, reliable and independent within a non-trivial context. This article does not have such coverage. Hahc21, do you have any policy-based reasons for this article to be kept, or is this a case of WP:ITSNOTABLE? SplashScreen (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I have been skeptical about this article in the past and when I first saw that this was at AfD, I read the article again (without reading any of the above comments). I still don't think this article is needed. In my opinion, there is absolutely no point in having this as it's just a box set of three albums. I mean, a sentence in the lead ("the set contains Rihanna's first three studio albums: Music of the Sun (2005), A Girl like Me (2006) and the deluxe edition of her 2007 album entitled Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded (2008)") summarizes all the article's info on this box set. The rest is just random stuff about the individual albums. Pancake (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Aside from the brief Rap-Up piece that's referenced in the article, I'm unable to find coverage for this release in reliable sources. The individual albums that make up the set are obviously notable, but I don't belive the set itself meets WP:GNG. The Background/content and Credits/Personnel sections take up most of the Rihanna 3-CD article, but the info contained therein is not only redundant to the individual album articles, but it does not discuss this release at all. So putting that aside, the remainder of the 3-CD article merely mentions the release date(s) and chart position, both of which are already listed at her discography page. If desired, a note identifying Rihanna's three albums can be added at her discography page, as was done with the similarly-themed Whitney Houston Triple Feature over at her discography page.  Gongshow ^Talk 09:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources for this album. Majority of the sources in the article refer to the individual albums that make up this set and not the compilation itself. Charting, in and of itself, does not make an album notable - it represents a list of best-selling albums in a given week and is not "significant coverage". --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Smerge to Rihanna discography. Basic information that this set is the first three albums compiled into a set can be merged inot the discography article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If the Billboard charting can be referenced as that would make it notable otherwise delete. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Again?? This contains enough information and it charted separately. It's independently notable. VítoR™ ^{Talk That Shit} 21:34, 20 July 2012 (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.