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. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Best of The Velvet Underground: The Millennium Collection[edit]

The Best of The Velvet Underground: The Millennium Collection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Still unsourced beyond Allmusic. Article is very extensive on OR but very short on sources. Last AFD was closed as no consensus, but I feel that many !voters were misinterpreting my rationale as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NALBUMS requires coverage in reliable sources (emphasis mine). All we have here is a single Allmusic review. J04n(talk page) 21:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep, disruptive nomination, and severely trout slap the nominator for misrepresenting the character of the original AFD. The original AFD was closed earlier this month, and absolutely nothing has changed. No on in the first AFD had any confusion about the deletion rationale, and no one in that discussion said anything resembling what the nominator somehow now "feels" was said there. The nominator has removed at least one plainly reliable source from the article, making his complaint about sourcing defects rather hollow. The Velvet Underground is a group of singular importance in the history of contemporary popular music, and punching holes in their otherwise comprehensive discography simply damages Wikipedia as an encyclopedic resource. As I pointed out in the previous AFD, WP:OSE declares that "that "In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items" and points out that providing entries/articles for full sets of such items "serves the purpose of Wikipedia being a comprehensive reference," a point that stands unrefuted (indeed, pretty much stands without disagreement.) There are scores of print resources about the Velvets -- Amazon.com alone lists nearly 150 books, including a "Rough Guide" volume which, given the nature of the series, includes a full discography/analysis which would cover this release -- but such texts are not conveniently available online, and googling for generic titles on GBooks is time-consuming and unproductive. Hasty deletion of such presumptively valid content is inapprpriate and destructive Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)speedy keep, disuptive nomination[reply]
• Delete -- notability not demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 03:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-charting non-notable compilation. Almost non-existant coverage. JacksOrion (talk) 03:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - While I am sympathetic to the cause of stamping out pages on obscure compilation albums such as those found in the bins at truck stops, the seminal status of this band combined with the fact that this is a major label release would seem to indicate that this page is best left alone. Carrite (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Carrite, who provide good reasons why we shouldn't mechanically apply notability guidelines in this instance, where it would "[punch a] hole in their otherwise comprehensive discography." And one of the key meanings of "encyclopedic" is "comprehensive"; Hullaballoo's quote above is hard to counter here, and has not been countered. Basic information about this album at a minimum is certainly verifiable, it's a major label release, and a highly notable band. Consequently, deletion would not yield any concrete benefit or further any policy. postdlf (talk) 00:23, 8 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.