Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISouljaboytellem

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. May not fail WP:CRYSTAL but no evidence it passes WP:MUSIC. Salted also StarM 02:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

iSouljaboytellem

Previously deleted via AFD and other means under a variety of alternate spellings (e.g. ISouljaBoyTellEm (album)). Album has enough sources for confirmation (so speedy deletion was declined) but still does not pass WP:MUSIC#Albums due to a lack of substantial media coverage. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G4) and salt — blatant recreation of deleted material which still does not address the WP:CRYSTAL problems. Also request creation protection and let the article be created again with admin approval. MuZemike (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but WP:Music and established practice suggests that albums by notable artists are worth their own article. As this release is cited to impeccable sources - Billboard, Interscope Records/A&M, and the official artist site - what is the point in deleting it until it is created again? Genuine question. Is this not make-work? 86.44.28.182 (talk) 06:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MUSIC says that albums by notable artists may be notable, not that they are notable. That an album is planned for release is not enough. There is very little actual content in the article; re-creating it when and if the album becomes notable will be easy. Anything verifiable can be added to the Soulja Boy article for the time being (if it's not there already). —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 10:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherent and also this is recreation of a previous deleted article. Also WP:CRYSTAL. BigDunc^Talk 16:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Album has a title and release date verified by reliable sources, which is enough for inclusion. Thus, it does not violate WP:CRYSTAL. --Pwnage8 (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say it violated WP:CRYSTAL; I said it didn't meet the notability requirements of WP:MUSIC#Albums. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Someone else did. You're still in the wrong though. --Pwnage8 (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then refute me, don't create a straw man to attack. You say I'm wrong but don't specify how the article meets WP:MUSIC#Albums. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 00:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Strawman? Attack? Where? I already said how it meets WP:MUSIC#Albums in my "keep" comment. No need to be redundant. --Pwnage8 (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion- The album has a single recently released but has not charted or been reference and the article of this album still has the same amount of references it had 10 months ago so it should be deleted until at least its single charts or when a music video is made.Xx1994xx (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Which policies support your reasoning? As of right now, I'm not aware of any. In deletion discussions we either vote "Keep", "Delete", "Merge" or "Redirect". Please do not use DRV terminology here. Thank you. --Pwnage8 (talk) 01:33, 10 November 2008 (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.