Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punk-O-Rama (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 merge all into Punk-O-Rama. bd2412 T 04:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Punk-O-Rama (album)

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

Run-of-the mill compilation sampler album series that fails WP:GNG.

Please see the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warped Tour 2002 Tour Compilation.

I am also nominating the following related pages for deletion because of similar issues – basically due to failing the WP:GNG criteria for notability:

Footnote: If all these articles are deleted, then Category:Punk-O-Rama albums should also be deleted, as it will be empty.

My previous nomination for deletion of these articles, discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warped Tour 2002 Tour Compilation, was closed with a suggestion to break up the proposed deletion list into smaller groups. This is the second of those groups. None of the articles have been improved since that deletion discussion, in which most participants (including myself) expressed the opinion that these articles should be deleted, and the primary objection (expressed by two participants) was procedural – based on the idea that too many articles of different types were grouped into a single deletion nomination. This new nomination should rectify that.

Punk-O-Rama Vol. 2, a.k.a. the 1997 Warped Tour Compilation (per the {{Warped Tour}} template content), cites only a self-published dead link from the record company and a four-sentence comment on Allmusic. It contains only basic track listing information an unsourced comment about the price of the album and unsourced comments about the previous release of certain tracks.
Punk-O-Rama (album), Punk-O-Rama III, Punk-O-Rama 4, Punk-O-Rama 2001, Vol. 6, Punk-O-Rama 7, Punk-O-Rama 8, Punk-O-Rama Vol. 9, and Punk-O-Rama 10 have basically identical characteristics as for Punk-O-Rama Vol. 2.
Punk-O-Rama 5 cites only two self-published sentences from the record company and a one-paragraph Allmusic blurb.
Punk-O-Rama cites only a self-published statement from the record company that says the series is defunct.
Unsound (compilation album) cites the same self-published statement from the record company that says the previous series is defunct. It contains no evidence that the newer series, which was discontinued after just one release, achieved any greater degree of notability.

—BarrelProof (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep.
1. By putting all these different pages together it seems to force users here into an "all or nothing" choice.
2. As always, notability is in the eye of the beholder, and while we have certain standards, an article for deletion request means the burden rests on the nominator to assert why something is not notable, which means going further than simply saying "does not pass". The nominator must explain why they believe it is not notable.
3.furthermore, it's good policy for people who wish to remove information from a global encyclopedia to at least be familiar with the topic at hand. How can someone say something is not notable if they do not know the topic? Are you familiar with the American Punk scene?
4. If someone was to examine this nomination thoroughly, they would see that the second to last link you have added to the list is Punk-O-Rama. This, unlike the others is not an album, but a description of the entire series. To have made a top level nomination for an album and then put the page for the entire series in the list of things to delete, is not good form and goes against procedure. It would be like someone pointing out that a page for a Pokemon is not notable in itself, and then adding Pokemon to the AFD nom. regardless whether Punk-O-Rama is appropriate for inclusion here, it must have it's own AFD and cannot be lumped in with others.
5. So there are in fact two questions here: A. Are the individual Punk O Rama albums valid topics? B. Is the Punk O Rama series a valid topic?
6.If the answer to A and B is no. Then seperate nominations must be made. If the answer to A and B is Yes, then we should keep. If the answer to A is no and B is yes, then the contents of should be merged with B.
7. As someone who considers themselves into turn of the century Punk music, I'm definitely aware of the Punk O Rama albums and they seemed quite ubiquitous to me. Are they notable to the American/UK Punk scene? undoubtedly. I do not know, but it would be interesting to see sales etc. The fact that the series lasted for so long and had over 80 bands on it, surely plays in their favour. More research needed I think.
8. As if by magic, the second Page of a quick google search turns up this article on AVclub, an article entitled "Punk-o-Rama captured and killed the 90s pop punk boom" ^[1].

Let's hold the horses on this one Egaoblai (talk) 13:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://music.avclub.com/punk-o-rama-captured-and-killed-the-90s-pop-punk-boom-1798264964

Regarding item 2, notability is not really a matter of "the eye of the beholder" – it is established by such criteria as having in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the topic (see WP:GNG). These articles don't show that, and don't contain any assertion that the topics are notable (e.g., significant awards given for an album or high sales). Regarding some of the other comments, I don't believe it is necessary to have separate nominations in order to have separate outcomes – we can decide to keep one or more of these articles without keeping all of them, despite them having been nominated for deletion together. You seem to think that the Punk-O-Rama article should be kept. Currently that article is very poorly sourced and contains no indication of notability. It cites only a self-published statement saying that the compilation series has been discontinued, and a self-published dead link. I acknowledge that I should have listed that one first instead of late in the list – that is an artifact of the way the nomination was developed. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to one article- Individual albums do not seem notable as per Wikipedia:NALBUM. However I can see an argument for an article about a long-running series of compilation albums, so I would merge into one article (and we can loose all the track listings to save space).--Rusf10 (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as one article per Rusf10. Also, there's no need to indicate individual notability of those compilation albums, especially which may individually fail to meet GNG but are still part of the notable album compilation series. George Ho (talk) 07:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They can all be merged into Punk-O-Rama, which should then be kept. PPP (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2017 (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.

[1] ttps://music.avclub.com/punk-o-rama-captured-and-killed-the-90s-pop-punk-boom-1798264964

[1]