Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3 CD Collector's Set (Rihanna album) (3rd 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 delete. Of specific note is the fact that the "delete" arguments directly address the sourcing available as inadequate, while the arguments to keep provide no rationale whatsoever, nor dispute this assertion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3 CD Collector's Set (Rihanna album)

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)

Do not be fooled by the size of this article. The only third-party, reliable source that discusses the topic is the second reference, which is nowhere near the required amount of coverage for

• Keep. Nomination based on jealousy. Per the comments on the previous nominations. Meh. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 23:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have provided zero evidence of how this topic is notable. Till 23:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my vote on the last AFD. It's notable. —
  21™ 23:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • So
    WP:ITSNOTABLE? Good grief, they should have banned you from Afd altogether. Till 23:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Should I be banned from AFD altogether? Well, go and try this time, you may have luck. —

    21™ 23:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    • You'd think you've heard from your first ANI report. This time, you will receive a block for your acts. Keep digging. Statυs (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It appears to be a non-notable topic that passes
  andley 00:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • ... (You made an error there) And have you read the article? The only secondary, reliable source is from Rap Up acknowledging its existence, which is not enough for
    WP:GNG. The rest of the information is completely irrelevant to the article in terms of notability. Till 01:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • See below.
      andley 02:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Comment. Here's my assessment of the article's 17 sources:

(1) Allmusic listing. No significant coverage.

(2) Rap-Up piece. This one's okay.

(3) "inlay cover" to the Good Girl Gone Bad album. Not independent of the subject and no mention of this Collector's set.

(4) Allmusic credits for Music of the Sun. No significant coverage and no mention of this Collector's set.

(5) Identical to #4. No significant coverage and no mention of this Collector's set.

(6) MTV article. No mention of this Collector's Set.

(7) Another MTV article. No mention of this Collector's Set.

(8) "inlay cover" to the A Girl Like Me album. Not independent of the subject and no mention of this Collector's set.

(9) Billboard article. No mention of this Collector's set.

(10) Guardian article. No mention of this Collector's set.

(11) Independent article. No mention of this Collector's set.

(12) Amazon listing (Canada). No significant coverage.

(13) Amazon listing (US). No significant coverage.

(14) Amazon listing (Germany). No significant coverage.

(15) Amazon listing (UK). No significant coverage.

(16) Billboard directory listing. No significant coverage.

(17) Allmusic credits. No significant coverage.

I !voted to delete this during the previous AfD, and my concerns from last time still apply as far as I can tell. There is, of course, plenty of material written about the three albums (Music of the Sun, A Girl like Me, and Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded) that make up this collection. However, I'm not seeing significant coverage for the collection itself, with the exception of the Rap-Up write-up. And that's what I'd like to see more of in order for this to satisfy

WP:NALBUMS.  Gongshow ^Talk 01:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per Gongshow and Till. Subject clearly doesn't pass
  andley 02:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per Gongshow and Till.
  theSecond 14:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • To the above:
    WP:MAJORITY. Statυs (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Isn't it clear I feel that Gongshow and Till have highlighted that this is not a notable subject. So I vote Delete.

theSecond 15:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Those pages you gave, Status, are only essays, not guidelines or policies. Regardless, I expanded my comment.

andley 15:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I am aware, I am just asking the two of you to give a better rationale for your vote. That's all. "Per x" votes don't hold much weight to a discussion. Statυs (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is pointless to blabber the same what another user pointed out earlier. This clearly isn't notable Gongshow has made this perfectly clear. But I understand your notion. So for future reference I will blabber more.

theSecond 15:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Article's best sources are in relation to the individual albums in the set but not the set itself. Charting in and of itself does not make an album notable. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I have reviewed and agree with Gongshow's analysis of the sources. -- Whpq (talk)
• Delete – admittedly, I must say that the length of the article caught me off guard as to why this article is up for AfD, but a look at the sourcing, as well as a Google search, which largely turned up retailer links, tells me that the article fails
  WP:GNG because it lacks sufficient coverage from third-party sources. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 00:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• NeutralWeak Delete It has charted, which is indeed a considerable point for having an article but it does not seem notable to be honest. If you read the article, you will come to know it talks a lot about other existing articles on Wikipedia. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  In this case, having charted does not mean anything. It ranked in one chart (which is not even the main national chart) and at a mediocre position. Charting and receiving awards does not mean much if the album does not get significant discussion from secondary sources. This article was fluffed up with very loosely relevant information. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 16:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Gongshow. The individual albums are absolutely notable, but this collection doesn't stand up to the GNG. Ishdarian 03:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacking indepth coverage in reliable third party sources. If such sources get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. 05:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  Stuartyeates (talk) 06:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong keep. Again this? It's notable.
  (D) 16:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Question - How so? -- Whpq (talk) 20:57, 25 November 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.