Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti (Rihanna album): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 01:05, 14 October 2015

Anti (Rihanna album)

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

Don't be fooled by the references currently used; this doesn't meet notability criteria for albums since there is no confirmed release date or tracklist. It therefore is too early for this to have an article per WP:Notability (music)#Unreleased material and WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely NOT delete, but Incubate, until we get more details regarding the actual release date and the track listing. Apart of that the article can be standalone, because we already have enough information for the development, writing, artwork, obviously singles and etc. — Tom^(T2ME) 19:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep it's an upcoming notable album and there's already a lot of (sourced) information on it, including the name, tracks, etc. This is a misuse of WP:CRYSTAL as this is both a certian event and what is included in the article is quite a bit of the non-speculative portions of the future albums. If there's anything speculative, it should be remove but the article on the whole is notable and fairly well sourced. -- R45 ^talk! 20:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this isn't exactly a "speedy keep". Secondly, WP:CRYSTAL is based on unconfirmed release date. Third, see WP:Notability (music)#Unreleased material; albums should not have articles when there is no confirmed release date or official tracklist, so it on the contrary is NOT (yet) notable. Specific criteria for upcoming albums exists for a reason and should be put to use. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From your link at WP:Notability (music)#Unreleased material:

Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources.

It does not say it has to have a track listing and release date are absolutely required (the words "in general" is used, and in the past there have been exceptions to this), but the principle is it should be notable and have reliable independent coverage. The article has a lot of reliable indepedent sources (72 references) discussing the album and the confirmed tracks, as well as its development. Given the scope and breath, it doesn't make sense to merge this into Rihanna's main article and frankly some common sense would suggest that this is one of those exceptional cases of a notable artist with reliable information out there on her next album. -- R45 ^talk! 21:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Common sense" is a meaningless argument and a cop-out response at best. Even if it wasn't, "common sense" if anything would actually not support including items without confirmed release dates. However, I might understand having an article on an album with a confirmed title, official release date, and many tracks confirmed. It would be more ideal to incubate this as Tomica points out than keeping it in mainspace. In fact, incubation is frequently used for albums ins like this before all the necessary details are confirmed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your point is, I'm allowed to express my opinion. I don't think it should be deleted, and I expressed my point. Others will chime in, and either there'll be consensus to keep the article or not. You've stated your case, so just let the process work. -- R45 ^talk! 04:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that albums don't warrant articles without confirmed release dates. Also, I never explicitly said it had to be deleted, only that it shouldn't be in mainspace. Remember there is a difference between incubating an article (moving it away from mainspace) and deleting it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My "your point" comment was directed at your need to keep trying to refute my opinion. You created this AFD with your case and stated your point - I simply don't agree with you. As such, I voted Keep. I've read the policies you cited, and I don't believe this nomination is in the spirit of why the guidelines exist. Personally I think you're Wikilawyering a bit here, and this article is probably a very good example of the exceptional circumstances where we keep an unreleased album without a release date. I am only one voice and there's no need to get defensive because I disagree with the nomination. -- R45 ^talk! 05:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is enough non-speculation content for an article. sst ✈ 04:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:NALBUMS is meant to be a supplement to the WP:GNG requirements. In this case, the article topic has received significant independent reliable coverage. If content in the article may be considered WP:CRYSTAL, the correct approach is to remove it from the article while keeping verifiable information. See WP:ARTN. sst ✈ 04:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it fails WP:NALBUMS for having no confirmed release date or tracklist is why it doesn't (yet) warrant an article, regardless of how much coverage it has received. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An article does not need to meet WP:NALBUMS as long as it meets WP:GNG. sstflyer alt 05:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it actually 'DOES need to meet WP:NALBUMS, which is the specific notability criterion for albums. Specific criteria exists for a reason and should be put to use. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of source material to draw from... Binksternet (talk) 04:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

.....Except the prerequisites of release date and tracklist..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:GNG guideline does not need anything except significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 05:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant notability criteria for albums is WP:NALBUMS, which requires a confirmed title, official release date, and full track list in addition to coverage in multiple reliable sources. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is a lot of info for this album. I know there's no official track list or release date, but Rihanna releasing the artwork shows intent that those bits of info will come available very shortly. There is so much commentary here that it is actually useful for readers want info. This is an encyclopedia after all... However, I would also not be oppose to Incubate either. But deleting this wealth of well written and well sourced material is a complete no-no. — Calvin999 11:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the artwork, title and details are all official and reliable. There's no point in deleting the article at this stage when it will obviously be recreated and/or expanded with info like the track listing and release date in due course anyway. CoolMarc 11:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know why we waste time deleting or even incubating articles about upcoming album's by major recording artists that have received a lot of press coverage (even if they don't have a confirmed track list and release date). Let articles snowball! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've been told before by others that we aren't supposed to "let it snowball" when it doesn't meet notability criteria, regardless of who the artist is, and very well know better than to do that. WP:NALBUMS exists for good reason. Incubation is also most certainly NOT a "waste" of time. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this can arguably be speedily kept per WP:SK#1, since the nominator fails to advance an argument why this article fails the general notability guideline. sstflyer alt 01:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 *'''Keep'''. I don't know why we waste time deleting or even incubating articles about upcoming album's by major recording artists that have received a lot of press coverage (even if they don't have a confirmed track list and release date). Let articles snowball! ---[[User:Another Believer|<span style="color:navy">Another Believer</span>]] <sub>([[User talk:Another Believer|<span style="color:#C60">Talk</span>]])</sub> 18:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 :*You've been told before by others that we aren't supposed to "let it snowball" when it doesn't meet notability criteria, regardless of who the artist is, and very well know better than to do that. WP:NALBUMS exists for good reason. Incubation is also most certainly NOT a "waste" of time. [[User:SNUGGUMS|<b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b>]] ([[User talk:SNUGGUMS|<b style="color:#454545">talk</b>]] / [[Special:Contributions/SNUGGUMS|<b style="color:#454545">edits</b>]]) 19:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
+*I think this can arguably be speedily kept per [[WP:SK#1]], since the nominator fails to advance an argument why this article fails the general notability guideline. [[User:Kai Tak|sstflyer alt]] 01:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)