Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shout: The Very Best of Tears for Fears

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) ^{Babymissfortune} 01:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shout: The Very Best of Tears for Fears

Shout: The Very Best of Tears for Fears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Album fails notability as per WP:NALBUM in all respects. It is a minor, budget-priced compilation, released without the artists' involvement, it failed to chart in any country, was not nominated for any music awards, nor has it sold enough copies to be earn a certification in any country. The only third-party reference given is a review from AllMusic.com that is more of a description rather than a genuine critical review. The other reference given is simply the album itself, which is neither independent or relevant. MassassiUK (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I am not so dismissive of the Allmusic review - it is not as if they review every compilation album, and the review includes at least some critical commentary - and there are other reviews, for example this one off the first page of the Google web search. Rlendog (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Rlendog. I'm not sure if a proper link for the Popmatters review was provided, so try this. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Tears for Fears were a fairly well-known musical duo. Vorbee (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Just because it's a Tears For Fears compilation doesn't make it notable by itself, as WP:NALBUMS clearly states ("That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article."). This is a minor, cheapo-priced album released only in one country, put out by the band's old record company long after they had left. The company have released about a dozen of these cheapo TFF compilations over the years, with no less than four in 2001 alone (including this one). It wasn't successful and isn't noteworthy in the slightest, and even if we can find one or two more reviews for it, this article is never going to be much more than a tracklisting. It's already listed in their discography under miscelleanous compilations, which is more than enough. Guidelines state that "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting". TFF's major compilations have their own articles because they meet the notability threshold, but since there are so many minor TFF compilations, keeping this one would be opening the door for inappropriate and virtually empty articles on all of them. I think a single article covering the basic details of each of them might be an option (though even that would struggle with notability), but this one certainly doesn't warrant an article by itself. Soultruck (talk) 08:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• OK I take your point, but would the right course of action be to merge with the article on Tears for Fears? Vorbee (talk) 09:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I don't think merging it into the main Tears For Fears article is the right way forward, but Soultruck does offer a couple of interesting alternative solutions. On the band's discography article page, there is a list of "minor compilations" underneath the main ones, and perhaps each of these could be fitted with hide/show drop-down boxes that expand and provide the basic details for each compilation (tracklisting, year, relevant notes, etc). Using the hide/show system would keep the page uncluttered while still providing basic details for these releases for those who actually want to read them. A single article dedicated to all of the minor compilations is also worth thinking about but, as pointed out, it may not pass notability because there is so little to write about them. MassassiUK (talk) 10:41, 21 November 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.