Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Britney Spears' 6th Studio 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 Speedy Delete per criteria CSD G4 --JForget 22:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Spears' 6th Studio Album[edit]

Appears to fail WP:CRYSTAL - are any of these sources reliable, or on point? ukexpat (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMPORTANT NOTE To the closing admin: per evidence of signature here and here, as well as the fact that Eric1989 (talk · contribs) has made no edits prior to or after this debate, there exists a possibility that he and ikkomuitnederland (talk · contribs) are the same editor. Please be cautious of possible vote fraud. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no, the sources are blogs and Youtube, except for Usmagazine.com, which says only that she "is currently at work on an upcoming album", and people.com which can only quote "a Spears family source". JohnCD (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regardless of whether the sources are accurate, there is not enough information out there about this. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 17:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until there's more information than US Magazine provides--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While every active musician is likely to release another album at some point in time, it is NOT Wikipedia's responsibility to keep Britney Spears fans updated on the latest gossip and speculations. This article fails several of Wikipedia's core polices (most notably WP:V and WP:RS) and, with the unreliable and scarce information currently available, the article is unlikely to grow beyond an uninformative stub in the foreseeable future. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources ARE reliable! There is a confirmation from the producer on the release date. You can't get more confirmation. And this album is also very notable because there are very few other artists that have released 6 studio albums. Ikkomuitnederland (talk • contribs) 20:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - they do not appear to be reliable sources per WP:RS. – ukexpat (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Comment Just to clarify something Ikkomuitnederland, when editors here speak of reliable sources they are referring to the official Wikipedia policy that deals with WP:Reliable sources. I urge you to please read the first two paragraphs that give the general overview of what would qualify a source as reliable. The policy states the following:

As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.

When an article states Person X said that person Y is in the studio and stops there without going on to say that this has been explicitly confirmed by someone else, that means that there hasn't been a great deal of fact checking. Publications that publish such material are less inclined to be correct than they are to be the first to report on celebrity news or gossip. Therefore, the term reliable source has a different meaning to Wikipedians than it does to a celebrity gossip magazine: to us, a reliable source means a pulication that meets the criteria set out in WP:RS and for celebrity gossip magazines it means absolutely anyone close to the Britney. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So...Jim Beanz, Danja, Darkchild, the LA Times and Guy Sigsworth are all not reliable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ikkomuitnederland (talk • contribs)

Comment No. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I registered myself especially for this because I just need to say one thing: You need to keep this because the fact that people keep making a page about this shows that there is a public interest in this album, and why shouldn't this album have a page just because it isn't released yet? Michelle Williams latest album had its own page a year before it was released! And the producer, Darkchild, confirmed the release date! Eric1989 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC) — Eric1989 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment- just because there is fan interest does not mean that the subject matter is appropriate per WP policies and guidelines. (for example, see WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL). – ukexpat (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC). Oh and take a look at WP:SPA too. – ukexpat (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- But then why did her previous album 'Blackout' had its own page since mid 2006 while it wasn't released till October 2007? And that wasn't even confirmed by someone close to her, only by producers which is exactly the same now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ikkomuitnederland (talk • contribs)

Comment: Not that it matters but that one should have been deleted back in 2006, and had I been around at the time, I would have taken it to Afd. – ukexpat (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the reason one source is a blog because Danja confirmed the ablum via Myspace and you can only go there if you're a friend of him on myspace. Anyway, this page will get you to Danja's myspace where he confirmed it: http://www.breatheheavy.com/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1213761123&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&

Ps: Can't we just let this page exist but put a header on the page that this is all 'rumoured' (Allthough I don't agree, because the sources are people who are directly involved with the album) information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ikkomuitnederland (talk • contribs)

Absolutely not! You want to put a disclaimer in an encyclopedia that says This is a rumour? Maybe you don't fully understand what an encyclopedia is. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment If it's all rumoured it has no place being on wikipedia MrMarmite (talk)

And again, Jive Records did not confirm 'Blackout' until October 4th 2007 but it had its own page since 2006! And Madonna's album Hard Candy had its own page for months and at one point even saying that it would be a greatest hits compilation!!!! That turned out to be very accurate! ikkomuitnederland (talk • contribs) 18:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a self-published source, MySpace is never ever considered a reliable source. Being or not being someone's friend is inconsequential. I ask you again to please read WP:RS. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just wait for the album to be released, or at the very least named. This is an encyclopaedia not a fan site.MrMarmite (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Then I say that this page also get deleted because the album has no name: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminem%27s_fifth_studio_album —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikkomuitnederland (talk • contribs) 19:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you...now all the information and sources have been deleted and now it does look un-true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikkomuitnederland (talk • contribs) 19:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have rolled back the almost blanking of the page as it was clearly inappropriate while the Afd process continues. – ukexpat (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Just another piece of crystal.
Kww (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page has previously been deleted on more than one occasion. See: [1]. Further, having a page such as this is wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The ones creating these pages are referencing Britney fan pages, Youtube and the like, and, instead, should be writing on their own personal little blogs about what Britney will or will not be doing according to rumour and speculation, and SHOULD NOT be cluttering Wikipedia with such nonsense. Please review Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is NOT, if you are uncertain as to what should and what should not be included in Wikipedia. 71.141.114.187 (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - as recreation of deleted content. 1st deletion 2nd deletion until it has a title, a tracklisting, and a tentative release date future albums are not notable --T-rex 20:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note previous AfD --T-rex 20:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually we have already deleted this five times --T-rex 20:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good call! I added the link to the previous discussion in the speedy tag on the article main page. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 30 June 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.