Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lil' Kim's fifth 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lil' Kim's fifth studio album[edit]

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

Another WP:CRYSTAL violation that WP:NALBUM's advice that there shouldn't be articles about albums without confirmed release dates, tracklists, and titles was designed to prevent. It's unclear the the project really even exists. Most of this material isn't well sourced, and the stuff that is sourced isn't clearly relevant to any album that may ever be released. Article is littered with such delightful facts as "It is unclear however which project they were collaborating on" and "Although she is still without a label, Kim has stated in multiple interviews that she has 'a few situations on the table'", which certainly doesn't meet WP:CRYSTAL's standard of certainty. —Kww(talk) 03:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HAMMER. Also, article seems to contain a lot of gossip and rumor type material. Chris857 (talk) 03:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HAMMER is an opinion essay, not a part of Wikipedia's structure of community approved Policies and Guidelines. As such, you're not presenting much of an argument for deletion here, since gossip and opinions may or may not be notable and properly sourced. Carrite (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HAMMER. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HAMMER is an opinion essay, not a part of Wikipedia's structure of community approved Policies and Guidelines. As such, you're not presenting a valid rationale for deletion here. Carrite (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:HAMMER --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 09:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HAMMER is an opinion essay, not a part of Wikipedia's structure of community approved Policies and Guidelines. As such, you're not presenting a valid rationale for deletion here. Carrite (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (but would settle for Userfy) per WP:HAMMER --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HAMMER is an opinion essay, not a part of Wikipedia's structure of community approved Policies and Guidelines. As such, you're not presenting a valid rationale for deletion here. Carrite (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Delete because this article exhibits problems similar to those trends mentioned in Wikipedia:TenPoundHammer's Law, where articles about a forthcoming album that do not have a reliably sourced title are generally considered unsuitable for a standalone article at that time. Specifically, there is not enough significant coverage in reliable sources to currently justify a separate article from the main one on Lil' Kim, more specifically I see references to YouTube, SoundCloud, social network sites and blogs, which are all inherently unreliable, and for the few references, such as those written by MTV and The New York Times that are reliable, most don't appear in my view to contain significant coverage of the album's development. I am not inclined to !vote "redirect to Lil' Kim because I don't believe anyone would type "Lil' Kim's fifth studio album" in a search box. This MTV reference does specifically talk about the album, but it's a dead link, so I cannot verify the information present in it. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There ya go. No objections here. Carrite (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article's creator was not notified of this AfD. I have now done this. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:HAMMER has been incorporated into WP:NALBUMS: "an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label.". "Per WP:HAMMER" is equivalent to referring to WP:NALBUMS, which is a guideline.—Kww(talk) 19:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any closing administrator at AfD that allows an opinion essay to be WP:CITEDINALLCAPSLIKEITISPOLICY and employed as the sole reason for keeping or deleting an article is failing at their job. Essays are not policy, essays are not guidelines — the things that actually govern Wikipedia's deletion process — essays are opinions. Carrite (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any closing administrator that insisted that citing an essay that precisely reflects a guideline was invalid is placing technical concerns above reasoning. WP:BURO would apply. WP:HAMMER came first, and was so widely recognized as reflecting consensus that it was incorporated into WP:NALBUMS. Many editors continue to quote WP:HAMMER when the portion of WP:NALBUMS that is relevant is the bit directly lifted from WP:HAMMER. An admin is supposed to consider whether a view reflects policies and guidelines, not whether the view quotes policies and guidelines.—Kww(talk) 21:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a closing admin sees an article with the title "x's nth album" and sufficient "Delete per WP:HAMMER" !votes, they have to report that consensus says the community considers the album is not notable for inherent problems as described by that essay. If they feel the !votes are not convincing, and can find sources themselves, they can cite them, !vote keep, and relist, ensuring another admin does the close, but I can't honestly think of an AfD where a WP:HAMMER hasn't been near-unanimous. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I apologize for the chaos regarding the creation of this article. I created this to provide a background for the album, anticipating a release in the near future. Other users and guests have vandalized the article with false information and sources, which I recently tried to clear up. Feel free to delete the article if it does not meet your criteria. If it is decided to delete this however, The Queen's Command EP should definitely be deleted as well. Vi0l8t3r (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to apologise. Nobody will think anything less of you at all for having an article arrive at AfD. It's happened to me, and probably a large majority of long standing users have had articles they've contributed to proposed for deletion. As I hinted at earlier, an admin can move the article into your userspace where it will be kept safe from deletion. By the time the album is released, there will be many more sources around confirming the name, the track listing, reviews in major music magazines and so on, which suddenly make all the arguments here invalid as it's now notable. I know we have a bit of a laugh with WP:HAMMER, but all it really means is your article isn't ready for prime time Wikipedia yet. Hope that's of use. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:49, 6 December 2012 (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.