Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ITunes Session (Kelly Clarkson EP)

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. postdlf (talk) 00:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Session (Kelly Clarkson EP)

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

Per WP:NALBUMS this is little beyond a track listing and thus is not notable for its own independent article. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 16:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This passes both WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. There is more than "little beyond a track listing", there is also peak position information, sales information, single information and release history information all of which is sourced. Aspects (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think its pretty rare for these types of re-recordings to charts and/or debut with 15,000 copies sold. Looks like it meets the WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS in that respect. Sergecross73 msg me 15:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment, its a single vendor release, exclusive to iTunes so of course it would sell less than other commercial releases. it didnt chart which is specifically a condition for albums being notable. furthermore according to WP:GNG, subjects should receive independent coverage from third-partyul reliable sources in order to be considered notable enough for an independent article. thus unless there is coverage from sources other than the label or iTunes it fails GNG as well as NALBUMS. this information could be contained at Kelly Clarkson discography or Kelly Clarkson. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But my argument is that it actually did do well despite being a single vendor release. These sorts of sessions release usually dont really move any units, but the article claims both the EP and songs from it charted. Do you contest this? Sergecross73 msg me 01:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it still hasnt received coverage which warrants an independent page which is one if the key criteria at NALBUMS. if we ignore the track listing for one moment (as a track listing alone is not notable) the discography page tells us when the EP was released, its sales and its chart position. Thus aside from telling us the track listing the article serves no purpose. The discography had a listing of the single and a link to the single where there is coverage. apart from the cahrt position/sales, there is no coverage about the album itself as a body of work. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 16:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to do some digging. In my experience, when notable musicians (especially very mainstream ones like this) have albums/songs that chart, there's usually enough third party coverage through "Background" or "Reception" type sections to warrant and article. (That's why WP:NALBUMS typically makes sense, after all.) I can't help but think that its available, and as long as its out there, then it probably shouldn't be deleted. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

if there was a review or two from reliable critics and some background (I.e. an interview by clarkson or some info about putting together the collection, something other than information about the single) then id agree. at a first glance I couldnt find reviews from the ususl critics e.g. pitchfork etc. and beyind coverage of the sibgke there qa nothing substantive about the collection other than its sales. that leads me to conclude that the only information provided (which isnt listed in the discography) is the track listing, something which then accoring to NALBUMS doesnt make an album notable. pages should not exist to give the track listing of a release. in fact a separate page should only be created where the information is too much to be contained in the discography or at an artist's page. if that information could be found then ill support the maintaining of the page, otherwise as per the substantial number of other deletion discussions for similar releases and past experience as well as the current guidelines I would stand by my original nomination. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Some thoughts to consider:

Allmusic confirms it charted in the Top 200 - at 85.
USA Today confirms it at least sold 13,000 copies, and stayed on the charts for at least a couple weeks, as it says it was at #154 on another week.
USA Today staff includes it in their article of recommended music releases in December in another article.
Pop Crush gives some insight on the re-recordings.
MTV reported on it
Artist Direct reported on it. Sergecross73 msg me 15:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I don't think its ever going to be a super-detailed article, no, but not every one has to. I do believe it passes the WP:GNG though. Sergecross73 msg me 15:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

if others unanimously agree thst this makes it notable thrn obviously id agree. in my eyes as it wont be detailed or beyond a stub its probably still not notable but the majority goes I guess. :-/ — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:19, 26 July 2013 (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.