Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T.I.P. (album)

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The result was Withdrawn. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

T.I.P. (album)[edit]

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

Non-notable "demo" album with little ~~or no~~ media coverage of substance. Fails WP:NALBUM. TheJazzDalek (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep': Passes WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep uh dudes it has a review already in the article and this second one is like the third result on google: http://www.stylusmagazine.com/reviews/young-buck/tip.htm This took ten seconds. 86.44.18.194 (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok "dude", I changed the nomination to reflect your findings. TheJazzDalek (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Sadly too much of this album is just plain mediocre." [1] "And not to belabor the down notes of the album, but the coarseness is, in fact, bold... the meager production values on the compositions do take either a charitable ear or blind eye to get something out of the instrumentals alone." [2] I'll assume that you read both reviews before !voting, and that you would have offered better if better were available. So, you're arguing for notability on the basis of two reviews that found this album without merit? Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I made some additions to the article. While WP:NALBUMS states that demos are generally not notable, (1) That's generally, not always (indeed, the next sentence notes that demos may be notable if "significant coverage" exists), and (2) Demos generally do not crack the Top 40 of Billboard, as this did. The fact that it charted, combined with the two independent, non-trivial album reviews, is enough in my view to satisfy WP:N and WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 19:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, look at that, it actually charted—my face is red. I can't shut down the AFD now that others have !voted but this article should clearly be kept. Kudos to Gongshow for finding the chart info (which, oddly, wasn't even mentioned in the article before). TheJazzDalek (talk) 20:06, 30 January 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.