Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitsuné Maison Compilation 2

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. -- Cirt (talk) 06:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kitsuné Maison Compilation 2

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

no notability shown for this compilation album. having a bunch of notable artists does not make a compilation notable. no coverage in independent reliable sources. prod removed saying "This is a ridiculous delete IMHO - Kitsuné are a reputable label and the artists involved are, in most cases, noteworthy (as expected for a compilation album)." duffbeerforme (talk) 09:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the next compilation in the series for the same reason:

Keep As stated when I removed the prod notification I strongly disagree with the deletion of this article, the established notability of the artists involved in the creation of the compilation combined with the Wiki verified notability of the label that released/created the compilation warrant its inclusion. Compilations like this by their very nature aren't going to be easily verified through the internet, they're from a time period when internet coverage for this kind of release was scarce, that doesn't mean they moved less units or involved artists less important than a comparative release which would warrant inclusion today; infact, it's probably the opposite. It's been categorized correctly and fits within the confines of that categorization well - perhaps a less destructive move on your part Duff would have been attempting to source the article rather than prod marking? Stevezimmy (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

notability is not inherited. stuff from 2006 not written about on the internet? fitting in a category is far from a reason to keep (I'm a living person, we have a category for that). and discuss the subject, not the editor. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, re time period I thought it was 96, not 2006. Regardless my other points stand; notability of artists/record label/international distribution/presence on amazon, torrent sites, etc. indicates it's a popular release. You are a person and quite obviously you are allowed on Wikipedia, is there a prod marker I can put on you? Stevezimmy (talk) 05:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just use the regular prod, but I will remove it before I get deleted. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NALBUMS, albums normally should have the same level of sourcing expected for films/video games or pretty much anything else. Since this is a compilation, not an artist album, it's even more important that it's sourced with significant secondary coverage. I couldn't find any such sources, none have been presented since the article's creation. Someone another 22:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources whatsoever, and a quick Google search didn't seem promising. Fails all relevant notability guidelines. Huon (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2010 (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.