Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dream With Me
- 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. Reliable sources exist today about the expected release, so WP:CRYSTAL is not applicable. Owen× ☎ 12:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dream With Me[edit]
- Dream With Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As a future album without significant coverage in reliable sources, album fails notability requirements of WP:NALBUMS. Sources verify the existence and eventual release of the album, but at this time is not notable. Will it be? Probably...but that's venturing into crystalballism. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as creator of article - I think it can be reasonably assumed that an artist reaching #2 on the Billboard 200 has inherited notability for albums being released. Assuming good faith, this seems more like process-wonkery to me than anything else; the album will be gaining more coverage leading up to release and post-release, we have a tracklist and a store reference, that's enough. Also, here is a press release from Sony about the album, and an artist profile talking about the upcoming release, these were just found today. CycloneGU (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: with only a track listing, this upcoming release doesn't meet notability guidelines. There are seems to be very little coverage of the release online, besides coverage of her upcoming TV special of the same name. Yves (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep personally haven't heard of this artist but a quick search was enough to find several news sources reporting about the album release. Have now added three sources and removed the Amazon link. If that still isn't enough, CRYSTAL aside why delete when it will be recreated in less than a month's time? Userfy at worst Jebus989✰ 19:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that changes were made to the article since the listing. Would the nominator care to revisit this? CycloneGU (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Improvements noted. I'll leave it up to admin to determine and close. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems no one else had chimed in yet, but I agree...let's leave it to an admin. to decide. The article will be recreated in a month regardless (maybe sooner) as there will be more and more information to add over time, it's just pre-release and there isn't as much available at this point. I'm not a crystal ball user, but this might be a case I make an exception based on artist's notability. It will be a surprise if this doesn't sell well. CycloneGU (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per improvements. As mentioned above, this will be notable if it enjoys the success that's anticipated. If Evancho has a Jobriath moment and the albums bombs... it will still be notable for that reason. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:54, 14 May 2011 (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.