Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyrannosaurus Rex: A Beginning

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. czar ⨹ 02:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrannosaurus Rex: A Beginning

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

Does not appear to be notable or worthy of its own Wikipedia article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As merely a compilation of two albums, I agree with nom to Delete. In the best interest of Wikipedia, ~Ngeaup (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete: It was a UK no. 1 entity, so if deleted I don’t see how you can represent it in a succession of no. 1 things… Even if it’s two albums in one, it should count as a compilation. - - Apanuggpak (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (discourse) @ 18:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both T. Rex discography and List of UK Albums Chart number ones of the 1970s link to the two albums separately and the significant information about those albums including this re-release are all there. For those interested in "succession", one just needs to look at the number ones list. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The compilation exists, and was a number one, but from what I've found it didn't have this title, and in case there isn't enough content to justify a standalone article. --Michig (talk) 09:27, 31 January 2015 (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.