Talk:N.I.N.A.

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 March 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Ambiguity[edit]

If people are going to try to rescue this article, one point needs special attention. The meager sources we have would indicate to me that Lopes, using the pseudonym of "N.I.N.A.", was working on an unnamed album with an unknown tracklist at the time of her death. This article maintains that the album itself was named "N.I.N.A.", and has a tracklist for it. If my reading of the sources is correct, the article is simply false.—Kww(talk) 15:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that too. The peoblem is that the album doesn't have a name. If you look at the sources, that's what they say. And they might not end up giving it a name, i'm not sure. So far, everyone has just been calling it the "NINA album", which is the cause for this article. They may be planning on just releasing it as NINA, under NINA. Because, as of right now, all the news sources are just calling it NINA because there's no actual name. Silver seren^C 18:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the album hasn't got a name, tracklist, or expected release, why isn't the coverage present in Lisa Lopes sufficient?—Kww(talk) 19:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, the vast majority of the tracks was released on a "N.I.N.A. - Let Me Live" mixtape. Can we possibly change the name of the article? MaJic Talk 2 Me. I'll Listen. 02:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that even this Mixtape is packaged as "Let Me Live" by N.I.N.A., implying that the N.I.N.A. is just a pseudonym for Lopes.—Kww(talk) 03:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect discussion[edit]

I've been requested by the closing admin to make another try at the talk page to get resolution of this. Here's the problem: with the exception of one paragraph of text, this article is either false or unsourced. There is also the problem that N.I.N.A. is a pseudonym, not the name of an album. I can't find any other case where a pseudonym isn't just a redirect to the person using the name.

So, let's step through the article piece by piece:

N.I.N.A. is the cancelled second album by late Lisa "Left Eye" Lopes.

False statement. It's a pseudonym.

After numerous talks with Death Row Records CEO Suge Knight, Lopes severed her solo deal with Arista Records (she remained contracted with the label as a member of TLC) and signed with Knight's Tha Row Records, intending to record a second solo album under the pseudonym N.I.N.A. (New Identity Not Applicable). N.I.N.A. was to include several songs recorded by and with Ray J.[1]

All true. Also nearly exactly the text found at Lisa Lopes#N.I.N.A.

Then, the "recorded tracks"

'The Block Party (Feat. Eastwood & Phobia). This is sourced to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhhtHiZE_P4&feature=channel. This is possibly salvageable. It is apparently published by the owner, so it isn't a copyright problem. However, it only says that the song was recorded, and doesn't specifically associate it with any album.
Friends (featuring Kurupt and Danny Boy)
Hot Lanta (featuring Kurupt and Juvenile)
I Believe In Me
Let Me Live (featuring Crooked I)
Life (featuring Eastwood)
Rags 2 Riches (feat. Kurupt)
Too Street 4 T.V. (featuring Danny Boy)
Tru Confessions
Untouchable (featuring 2Pac)
Universal Quest (featuring Crooked I)

No source is given for these tracks. They seem to be the tracks on a bootleg mixtape. I can't find a single reliable source for that mixtape, just a blogspot site and bootleg download sites.

Note: These tracks were relased in 2003 as a mixtape entitled "N.I.N.A. - Let Me Live"

Again, can't find a source aside from blogspot and file-sharing sites.

That leaves us with a one-paragraph description that precisely matches the contents of Lisa Lopes#N.I.N.A., so it seems like redirecting it is the best thing to do. Our other choice is to remove most of this article, leaving that solitary well-sourced paragraph.—Kww(talk) 21:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect it. My argument for keep at the discussion was almost a total technicality, and by the end I wasn't even sure I agreed with my initial stance. The tracklist appears speculative at best, whether or not this was the intended title is also up for debate (and hence not a verifiable fact!), so... allow me to after-the-fact change my AfD vote to Redirect. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 22:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally feel that the AfD should have been relisted, as two votes hardly seems like consensus to me and if there had been more keep votes and arguments against redirecting, that would have been that. But, alas, that didn't happen. Question: is your only argument for redirecting that the name of the album is not clearly specified? Because that's not a reason at all. There is enough coverage about the album in the sources that it is clearly notable as a standalone album, it's just the ambiguity of the name that's a problem. And that problem can always be clearly explained in a section on this article about the album. I see no reason to redirect this to Lisa Lopes. Silver seren^C 19:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stated my argument above, but I will repeat: there is only one paragraph of properly sourced information. That paragraph fits nicely in Lisa Lopes, and, in fact, is already there. Once I edit the article to remove all the false and improperly sourced information, we will be left with a one-paragraph stub that is 100% redundant. As for the album coverage being sufficient, no it isn't: no tracklist, no release date, no critical reception, which are the basics of album articles. If you won't accuse me of disruptively relisting, I'll be happy to put the article at AFD again to try to get a larger cross-section.—Kww(talk) 20:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would also be interesting if you could find a single case where a pseudonym for an artist had a standalone article.—Kww(talk) 20:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has a tracklist. *points at the article* There's one right there. And I would like it, yes, if you would relist it at AfD with my endorsement, so we can get a larger view of consensus. As for your last statement, I never said that a pseudonym should have a standalone article, i'm not sure where you got that from. I said that, the ambiguity of the album's real name and the possibility that it was also just going to be named with just her pseudonym should be mentioned. The article is about an album, not a pseudonym, though the pseudonym should have an explanation section within the article. Silver seren^C 20:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read my argument above at all? The tracklist does not belong to this supposed "album". It's a list of "recorded songs" that were released on a bootleg tape later, for which no reliable sources exist at all. I'll trim the article to supported facts, and relist.—Kww(talk) 20:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]