Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rehab (album)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 incubate. T. Canens (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rehab (album)

edit
The Rehab (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NALBUMS there is no tracklisting or reliable source for the release date. The album has not charted and there is no information here that couldnt be merged to Young Buck. Independent articles should only be created if there is enough detailed information for a sizeable article. Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep What are you talking about the release date is sourced by "HipHopDX" which is a very reliable source. Red Flag on the Right Side 17:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice: Regardless of the release date, the complete track listing is still unknown. Nom's right, there's nothing here that couldn't be merged to the artist's article. That's where information about this yet-to-be-released album should remain until the title, release date and track listing have all been verified. Cliff smith talk 17:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Think we have a big group of sourced colabos and producers and two singles with a release date coming in less then two months and a tracklist will be out in like a months time. Red Flag on the Right Side 18:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And this is why we have a massive problem on wikipedia because users cannot understand or read the policies they helped create properly. WP:NALBUMS clearly says that regardles of notability stand alone articles should not be created where there is not sufficient detail. Lets wait and see what other's think. Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubate (as per Lil-unique1 (talk), below) Delete Quoting WP:NALBUMS: generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label. No problem with the article being recreated once all three exist. --j⚛e deckertalk 20:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC) (strikeout/!vote changed --j⚛e deckertalk 23:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Also from NALBUMS "Unless enough reliable sources exist to create a resonably detailed article" which is what we have here. Red Flag on the Right Side 20:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can you call several sentences a detailed article? Also the criteria you've quote applies once you have a confirmed title, release date and track listing because those alone do not necessarily make an album notable. Lets take an example say: Kelly Rowland (album). That album is not due till September 21, 2010 but is way more detailed than this album. Even Basic Instinct (album) is more detailed than this. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thats the messed up thing. Pop music gets way more coverage than a dope independant hip hop artists album. Red Flag on the Right Side 21:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that we have guidelines for a reason. To call Kelly Rowland and Ciara pop is ridiculous when there are R&B artist. Ciara does very few interviews etc. One of the sources on this page is facebook which is 100% not a reliable source. This info could be merged to the artist's page as aside from the single releases everything else is speculative. There's not public confirmation via artist or label of a track listing, release date or even name. The cover art is not even sourced. On the image's upload page it says "Derived from a digital capture of the album cover" which is ridiculous as the album has not be released so how is it confirmed? --Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HipHopDX got that release date from the record company and the title has been confirmed by Young Buck in interveiws. Red Flag on the Right Side 21:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) RedFlag: First, the phrase you quoted does not appear in WP:NALBUMS, on that page, the word "detailed" only appears in sections on composers and individual songs, at least in my browser. Seriously. I'm not trying to be a pedantic jerk, but I want to precisely address your question. As I read the whole of WP:NALBUMS, it seems clear to me that the text I cited is most appropriate for the judging of prospective albums. Can you let me know why you think I'm wrong in terms of WikiPolicy? Thanks. (BTW: love the username) --j⚛e deckertalk 21:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: You're right that notability isn't fair, it's just the ground rules. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I am tempted to push the Rowland article to AfD. --j⚛e deckertalk 21:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
nominating Kelly Rowland (album) for deletion is silly. It was previously nominated but sent to the article incubator. Administrators approved its recreation. There is too much info to merge in to the artist's page as it is detailed and even has 2 charted singles. That is completely different situation to this article. Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, you are correct, and I failed at what was in part a poor attempt at good-natured humor. "Tempted to" and "would" are different things. My apologies. I'll pick up the real discussion elsewhere. Thanks.--j⚛e deckertalk 21:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 17:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment the new MTV source says whenever it gets released which is most certainly a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. What baffles me is the number of users who don't appear to realise that the creation of an an article for an album which has not been released (and has no firm release date), which has no track listing and only a limited amount of coverage is a clear breach of our policy on notability of albums (WP:NALBUMS). All of the 'keep' comments say it should be kept because it will be released soon... but that doesn't address its current notability. Additionall NALBUMS says independent articles should only be created where there is sufficient detail yet none of these comments address those concerns. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of Wikipedia policy is that the general notability guidelines trumps any sub notability guidelines.--PinkBull 15:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That view is floored as the whole point of sub-notability guidelines is an addition to GNG. Each sub-policy is GNG in relation to a specific project. If you look at WP:NALBUMS (and music notability in general) it says in addition to GNG ... etc. Music is such a subject where information channels are both formal and informal. Speculation is rife and things often change much which is why WP:NALBUMS and WP:NSONGS exists --Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Rehab_(album)&oldid=1146474507"