Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ill Na Na 2: The Fever

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ill Na Na 2: The Fever[edit]

Contested prod, recently restored. Not a notable album, as it was never released. Sources only trivially mention the album, and any relevant material should be covered at Foxy Brown. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:NALBUMS which say "and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources.". The unreleased album has several independent reviews. Nsaa (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see independent reviews of it, just one- or two-sentence mentions in the context of something else. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as editor who challenged original WP:PROD on deletion review. There was much speculation over this album before Brown officially announced the termination of this project. As I've cited, news sources like MTV and Yahoo have written full articles about (now-wasted) progress done on Ill Na Na 2. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, more than enough coverage between the MTV and YahooNews articles to pass the significant coverage criteria of WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is exactly the sort of article the rule was written for. It received enough press attention to be notable despite the fact it wasn't released. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:16, 7 April 2009 (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.