Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Britney Spears' fifth studio album 2

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 keep. Only argument other than the nom is the invalid "delete and merge" (merging means keeping the edit history and some of the content, not deleting it). W.marsh 01:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Spears' fifth studio album

Not only non-existent (which many of us deprecate), but it doesn't even have a name. The previous AfD ended with no consensus (despite the closer's claim that it was "keep"); I think that the issue needs settling properly. other AfDs of similarly unnamed, not-yet-existent albms have ended in deletion, and I don't see the difference with this one. Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one difference between this and, say, Ashlee Simpson's Third Album (AfD discussion) is that in this case we have content from sources other than Spears herself, i.e. other people reporting that they have worked with Spears on the album, and giving their views of the music, and analyses from independent sources such as The New York Post. Uncle G 16:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article has quite a bit of sourced material, although there is about as much non-sourced material. The fact that the album doesn't have a name is neither here nor there. The name of an album is one of the last things to be decided on. DCEdwards1966 17:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OH GOD! she has another album. But as Uncle G pointed out, this one does have sources. Keep Whs itc hy 21:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: adequately sourced article, per others comments. RaNdOm26 05:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The page is constantly filled with false information. The album has been pushed back year after year. Merge it with the main article. Maddyfan 02:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Vandalism is not a reason for deletion. And deletion and merger are mutually incompatible, because of the GFDL. Please pick one or the other. Uncle G 13:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The false information was just something I was "also" taking note of. My main problem is that the album is pushed back year after year, the information is highly wrong, and it should be all condensed down to the main article. Maddyfan 18:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk of the new album is everywhere...from the internet to magazines to television. Soapfan06 1:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep Certainly passes notability and verifiability policies. ShadowHalo 08:55, 4 June 2007 (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.