Draft talk:Jock Jams: The All-Star Jock Jams

Pop music Low‑importance

	Pop music portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
Low	This page has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rock music Low‑importance

	Rock music portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
Low	This page has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Electronic music Low‑importance

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
Low	This page has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Albums

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Notability Requirements

@Dan arndt Could you expand upon the reason for rejection, besides noting notability ruling? As of current moment, along with other Jock Jam entries, all links to posting of Billboard 100/200 are now paywalled due to corporate greed, making those links deprecated anyway for verification of notability.

Secondly, I understand not having inheritance be a main push for an article publication to avoid clutter, but at the same time, I believe this draft has enough information, for the current moment, of what would need to be of reference for this album. It also rounds out the series of "Jock Jams", of which all others are similarly formatted except for the lack of a billboard 200 rating due to, apparent, low sales/listening volume.

If adding in statements regarding low sales volume and how it was a commercial flop would make it viable, similar to how one would note a possible artcile on a cancelled album due to money troubles or a studio going under, I'll be happy to adjust that.

But, at the present moment (and I do admit I am still a new editor wading through the weeds), it seems similar if not more on par with some other smaller stubs and in-line with the rest of the compilation of "Jock Jams" albums ChemicalBear (talk) 05:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability (Again)

@CFA As we've come back to the same point/issue of notability requires again regarding album status, I would like a more defining reasoning besides just pointing to guidelines on why this doesn't qualify again.

I understand the reasoning to not put EVERY album on Wikipedia, and why an album MUST have independent significance to be considered, but I'd argue I have proven such independent significance. While, yes, it does inherit significance due to the legacy of Jock Jams, especially Vol 1 going platinum, the lack of information for Vol 6 (All-Star) is a much-needed thing on the internet that isn't buried behind paywalls or archived articles.

If anything, the failure of Vol 6 to appear on any Top 100 tracks for Hot 100s for the early 2000s has been attributed to the rise of Napster and the age of digital piracy. Does that mean it could go as a footnote on the page regarding Napster or Digital Piracy, absolutely. But, as is, it would also be disingenuous to not have Vol 6 be included with the other 5 volumes, as it is culturally relevant and notable as a victim of early 2000s piracy, as well as the death of the brand of Jock Jams ChemicalBear (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As of review your denial, I have finally found a non-pay walled source that puts the album having Top 200 notoriety on the week of November 24, 2001. @CFA

Comparing this to Vol. 5, and even Vol. 4, this more than makes it independently notable as it appeared on the Top 200, while also having the independent notoriety of being the death of the franchise/series with the rise of internet piracy, a movement that has been noted on different sources referenced as having a direct impact on sales and widespread listening base, as physical copies were limited in sales due to piracy. As well as general genre staleness from Tommy Boy, with previous albums failing to reach the same success as Vol.1 and Vol. 2 ChemicalBear (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]