Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call R&B

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 without prejudice to recreation as a redirect to some appropriate target. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC) ~~(Apparently something is wrong with the servers and I can't seem to do the deletion at the moment. Hopefully will be resolved shortly. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC))~~ Done Beeblebrox (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call R&B

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

This is an upcoming single-retailer release of an album within the Now! compilation series in the US. While the main series regularly charts in the top 10 albums and sells relatively well, the themed albums do not. Being distributed to only one retailer makes this an even less notable release. No prejudice against recreation if achieves independent notability through third-party sources. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep lots of coverage, many copies sold. if anything merge into now series.Thisbites (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No coverage and, since it hasn't been released yet, no copies sold. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:27, 28 January 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) 00:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems like a very easy delete to me. I don't see how the single keep !vote here does anything to address the actual issues that led to its nomination. Shadowjams (talk) 10:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - though it has been released by now, coverage is unimpressive. A list entry in Now That's What I Call Music! discography should suffice. Huon (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Now! R&B album may not have much coverage at the time but it's not their fault. It is still early and the article has potential to not be deleted once the compilation gets more attention to an extent. And it is not fair this is the only Now! album article considered for deletion anyway. GETONERD84 (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two comments: Firstly, that other stuff exists is no reason to keep this article. If there are other Now! album articles with such a lack of reliable secondary sources, maybe they should be deleted as well, but this discussion is just about the merits of a single article. Secondly, if this album gains additional coverage in the future, the article may be recreated. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and keeping articles because the subject might gain significant coverage in the future seems premature. Huon (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Regardless of whether keep or delete, I point to the Allmusic entry which is notably...blank. Clearly they don't care enough to include this entry. The NOW Web site also omits it being a Walmart exclusive; hence, iTunes won't have it and they see no point including it. Personally, I say keep only because it is in a major series and it does belong chronologically, and that is enough reason. It's the same reason an unpopular album by an artist is still included, because the artist himself is notable. My only concern is how the Walmart-only bit ties in. If "Delete" is the result, I ask that the nominator do the tidy-up work linking "1990s" and "37" to each other where the R&B article is presently linked. CycloneGU (talk) 04:55, 9 February 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.