Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kidz Bop

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 all.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 17:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kidz Bop

This is a marginally notable album series marketed through TV ads, and all the album pages are borderline {{db-empty}} candidates. Although the main article is a decent length, it's not well sourced. —Crazytales (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of album articles:

Keep This is not seriously tenable; most of the albums in this series have sold half a million copies or more in the U.S.. The album pages are all just fine; they are generally short but well-tailored and have fully wikilinked track listings, which is perfectly encyclopedic. Chubbles (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers are not notability. Tens of millions of people watched the Super Bowl and saw a crowd shot of that fat shirtless dude with his face painted blue who was sitting in the front row of the south end zone next to the girl who looked sorta like Kelly from Saved by the Bell. That's a red-link for a reason, as that guy, despite being seen by millions of people, is non-notable. --Badger Drink (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC. We can cite policy all day here, if you like. Selling half a million copies of an album legitimizes the presence of the article, and rightly so. Chubbles (talk) 13:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Chubbles. These album pages are quite stubby, but they look all right, and many of these albums have gone gold or higher; there seem to be at least a couple decent sources regarding said albums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of sources are we talking about here? Hopefully not AllMusic stubs. --Badger Drink (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why hopefully? AMG is one of the best resources out there for popular music. I use it in pretty much every article I write. Not perfect, but far more comprehensive than paper discographies, and far more comprehensive than we are at present. Chubbles (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could all of the stubs on the individual albums be merged into a Kidz Bop Discography page? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm not generally opposed to this idea, and I think it's a much nicer and more workable solution for smaller discographies of short-lived bands than the outright deletion often pursued at WP:PROD, I think in this case it might be better to leave them as separate articles. Chubbles (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep as per Chubbles. LukeTheSpook (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, except for main article' The articles about Kidz Bop 1, Kidz Bop 2, Kidz Bop 3, etc. fail the first test of an encyclopedia article... truth. The articles contain a track listing, which is advertising; but they also list the original artists next to each song which is false advertising. The articles implie that Smash Mouth, Britney Spears, 'N Sync, etc. are heard on these albums, which is completely untrue. As anyone who has heard a "Kidz Bop" commercial knows, these are squeaky clean versions of songs, and they are re-recorded by a group of children who have marginal singing talent. Wikipedia is not the place for patently false statements. I suppose one could go back and "correct" this information proved unreliable, but it would make more sense to simply list all these songs in one article about the series. Mandsford (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "patently false statements" can be fixed, you know. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...and the fix is to add "originally performed by" in front of all of them. Please, by all means, {{sofixit}}. Chubbles (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well sure, these untrustworthy articles can be fixed (instead of "originally performed by", maybe we can put "sung by a kid pretending to be..."). But do we really need a commercial about what cover songs are on Kidz Bop 13, unless it's being offered for sale? Mandsford (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with the sentiment of this, I don't think the phrasing is quite how I would put it. The majority of album articles include a track listing. —Crazytales (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for the series in general. However, the various album articles might be better if merged into the primary article.--Gloriamarie (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The argument for keep would be stronger if the article told more about the reality of the recordings. Who makes the aesthetic decisions? Who edits lyrics? Who chooses songs and singers? Do they have any values or agenda beyond selling records, and if so, what? Bren Flibig (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. If any information can be found of that sort, it would certainly be useful to the article if sourced. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree here, especially since this would flesh out the audience and production sections. —Crazytales (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I'm sorry but... are you kidding? JuJube (talk) 03:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we we're kidding, we'd say "a horse walks into a bar, and the barman says 'why the long face?' " Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. The "group" is notable, and the albums may then exist by convention. Sure, the parent article needs expansion from sources. --Dhartung | Talk 04:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Kidz Bop (series), List of albums in the Kidz Bop series, or something along those lines. Notabilty is not inheritable - otherwise there'd be "Hank Aaron's Next-Door Neighbor's Second Wife's Brother". Each individual subject of an individual article must meet the criteria laid out in WP:N - specifically, significant coverage in reliable sources. No, a discographic mention in AllMusic does not satisfy this requirement. Albums such as these will not find themselves recipients of sincere art critique, as there is not much to be said from an artistic standpoint. If a particular album has gained general journalistic noteriety, such as by being linked to a school shooting or whatever, then by all means, give that one album its own page, but there's nothing that can be said about Kidz Bop 9 that does not equally apply to Kidz Bop 10, save for the most basic information - and covering that basic information is the job of AllMusic, not an encyclopedia. I would urge the closing administrator to remember that this is not a vote. --Badger Drink (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why so many users treat the track listings of albums as "unencyclopedic" - this is some of the most basic information that should be provided about a musician, and is, in my opinion, probably more important than a biography of that musician. Furthermore, there are volumes - both published and online - dedicated to the recording of such phenomena; they're called discographies, and they are entirely legitimate studies. Wikipedia's lack of willingness to record these things is one of its greatest failures to its users who care about music. Chubbles (talk) 11:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely keep Kidz Bop Halloween for the obvious reason... :) In any event, TenPoundHammer provides compelling reasons throughout this discussion. Also, these encyclopedic articles are part of what Wikipedia is per the First pillar, i.e. a specialized encyclopedia on albums of which there are many published volumes. And consistent with encyclopedia tradition: "All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." - Denis Diderot explaining the goal of the Encyclopedia Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diderot also wrote, "May the Encyclopédie become a sanctuary in which human knowledge is protected from time and from change." If that's what you want, I think you're in the wrong place. Deor (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the right place. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Merge individual albums into main article, if tenable. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge individual albums into main article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that the consensus, so far, is to merge the album articles into a main article about Kidz Bop, which is probably the best of solutions. While the series sells very well, and is very notable, I can't emphasize enough that the individual album articles are low in content and, far worse, untrue. If the authors of the articles Kidz Bop 1, Kidz Bop 2, etc. has been that careless with the truth about the artists one can expect to hear on the albums, then what reason do we have to rely on any of the other unsourced statements in those articles? I don't buy the argument that "Oh, it was a 'mistake', oh, that can be fixed". All of those articles can be merged into the main page, and under the circumstances, they should be. Mandsford (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep main article and the individual albums, too as passing the notability bar. Just because the people behind the albums weren't creative enough to give them individual titles doesn't mean they're not indiviudally notable. If we're going to do that, I assume the album articles for Chicago and Peter Gabriel will likewise need to be merged. AFD is not a forum for discussing whether the content in article A is better than the content in article B. That's a content issue to be discussed on the individual album articles. We're here to discuss the viability of these articles. 23skidoo (talk) 13:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge album track listings into a single article at Kidz Bop discography or a similar title, being sure to remove the performer-ambiguity problem. Delete List of songs on the Kidz Bop albums. Deor (talk) 13:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even in the worst case scenario we would redirect without deleting if we did a merge per the GFDL. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, "merge" means "put the information somewhere else, and change the page to a redirect." What makes you think I didn't know that when I gave my opinion? Deor (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have "delete" as well in your post and there's no reason why that couldn't be redirected as well thereby keeping editors' contributions public. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid deletion reason given. Being notable warrants inclusion; lacking references warrants the addition of sources. Rray (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the main article and the album articles but delete List of songs on the Kidz Bop albums. The overall Kidz Bop project is clearly notable per WP:MUSIC due to its commercial impact; the last seven albums in the numbered series (Kids Bop 7 through 13) have all hit the Top 10 on the Billboard 200. By the same token I would allow articles for the individual albums. Merging them all into a discography article would probably not be a good idea because there are already 18 albums with two or three more being released each year. I would delete the "list of songs" article because I don't think we have indexes to songs released by regular musical performers, or if we do, we shouldn't. If any non-Wikimedia GFDL-compliant wiki wants that list, it can be transwikied over there. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:45, 17 April 2008 (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.