Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enchanted (Aretha Henry 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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enchanted (Aretha Henry album)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable; article created with possible WP:COI, possibly for promotional purposes – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 18:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Also Beautiful (Aretha Henry album). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NALBUM. Normally in these cases you would suggest a redirect to the artist's article, but close inspection of the sources shows there's almost nothing on either the album or artist articles that passes RS. The AllMusic and BBC pages are empty of any information, the Digital Journal entry is a reproduction of a press notice advertising the album, there are no reviews of the records even on blogspots, and no idea what the Starfleet Music Charts are, but they appear to be a paid-for service to get your music noticed. The only RS I see is a short interview in a local Mississippi newspaper [1], so not enough coverage to demonstrate notability of the artist. As Doomsdayer520 says, I think Beautiful (Aretha Henry album) and Aretha Henry herself should all be bundled together for AfD. Richard3120 (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In complete agreement with User:Richard3120 above. Her two album articles do not reach the notability standard, and I would also support deleting the singer's article because it is an attempt at promotion and is based entirely on run of the mill song listings and minor introductions to her existence. I can find no significant coverage for the singer or her albums except for the Mississippi newspaper article found by Richard. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Before anyone says "Redirect to Artist's Article" as is becoming common practice, that article is also being discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aretha Henry. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of subject failing WP:NALBUM. Can someone pass the salt? -The Gnome (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to Sum Up - There is a lot of "See also" in the world of Aretha Henry deletion discussions. We now have four AfDs nominated by four different people over five days. This shows you the power of community, if you ask me. Here is what we have so far:

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:49, 18 June 2018 (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.