Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 10 Legendary Singles

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 Redirect to Led Zeppelin discography#Compilation albums. Any content worth merging to the redirect target is still available in the article history. Randykitty (talk) 10:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 10 Legendary Singles

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

PROD was denied and a citation added but this can rate a small mention in Led Zeppelin or Led Zeppelin discography. Regional-only albums are generally less notable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Limited release only in New Zealand, not notable enough for its own article. SliverOfLight (talk) 09:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep By inspection, the Dave Lewis book published in London states that the collection is "notable and collectable"...and London is not local to New Zealand. Unscintillating (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is a false claim. I have a copy of Dave Lewis's book. Nowhere in the article does it mention a page number. I have searched Lewis's book and nowhere does it state categorically that it is "notable AND collectable". I should also point out this collection is not even regarded as an official release. It was released without the knowledge of the band, hence you won't find it listed on the official Atlantic or the Led Zeppelin website discography. SliverOfLight (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I checked the article and I have not made a "false claim"...by inspection of the article what I have said can be verified as being stated in the article, and by basic knowledge of geography, London is not local to New Zealand. And you know what else is interesting, the reason for the removal of the prod was, link, "RS describes it as 'notable and collectable' - claim included." So what is disingenuous is the nomination ignoring the reason for the removal of the prod while mentioning it as if the removal was a reason for deletion, after having made no attempt to discuss the matter on the talk page of the article. I don't see that the article says that the band was not aware of this release, so you seem to be in possession of additional information on this topic. What is your source of information? Now, if this release was in violation of some international copyright law, there might be a WP:NOT issue to consider. Unscintillating (talk) 02:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please state the page number in Dave Lewis's book where the author claims this release is "notable AND collectable". Nowhere in the article is there a citation with page number to this. Simply claiming a book says such and such without verification is insufficient. It's interesting to note Dave Lewis in his last book From a Whisper to a Scream: Complete Guide to Their music (2012) makes no mention of this release at all. SliverOfLight (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The version of the book I saw did not have page numbers, however the set is one of a number of items discussed. At the beginning of the chapter "The Collectable Led Zeppelin" Lewis writes "The following is a guide to ... 100 notable and collectable Led Zeppelin memorabilia items..."

Note that while this is sufficient to remove a prod, it does not make an Afd disingenuous.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC).

The copy of Celebration Day I have, every page is numbered. You might have a fake/pirated version there. SliverOfLight (talk) 04:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. Simply because an album is "regional" it does not become less notable. In any event we should cover the releases of major bands during their lifetimes, as well as we can. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or possibly merge. Non-notable compilation album. Clearly fails SIGCOV, one disputed source is insufficient. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Led_Zeppelin_discography#Compilation_albums. I don't think it makes sense to have a dedicated article for every semi-official compilation, but it's probably not a terrible idea to have them listed somewhere. If there was more coverage of the item, then I'd be happier to keep it as a standalone article, but the discussion above regarding Lewis' book does not fill me with confidence. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:29, 8 November 2014 (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.