Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Big Withdraw

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 redirect to Lloyd Banks. A mention there may be in order. JoshuaZ 00:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Withdraw[edit]

An unofficial, leaked compilation of Lloyd Banks songs. No coverage from reliable, third party sources, only forums and file sharing sites. These songs may be by him, but they were never officially released. Spellcast 11:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-This album was supposed to be Lloyd Banks' second album. However it was stolen from him and then leaked. This is perfectly official. It was going to be his second studio album. There are many places which confirm this such as:

"Best Of '06: Lloyd Banks Loses New Album During Threesome, Addresses Cassidy Beef"
Lloyd Banks' "The Big Withdraw leaks
Lloyd Banks– The Rotten Apple

So it is quite notable, just as notable as any other album. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 11:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is just him admitting he had a CD stolen. And the other two sources (which seem to be blogs) are just non-trivial mentions because all it mentions is the title of this bootleg. Unlike notable album articles, this can never have charts, sales, production, themes, or critical reviews. There's no multiple, reliable sources on the album (it's not even listed in All Music Guide). WP:N says articles need "significant coverage" from sources that "address the subject directly in detail". Lloyd Banks admitting he had a CD stolen and a brief mention of the name of this bootleg are trivial mentions and is nowhere near "significant coverage". I'm prepared to withdraw the nomination if there's multiple, reputable sources that addresses the album in detail. But there isn't any. Spellcast 16:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Album wasn't even released. No charts, reviews, album sales, anything like that. --- Realest4Life 22:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 06:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While the above is reliable source material, there is not enough of it to develop an article and it seems unlikely that WP:RSs are going to cover this topic in the future. The information belongs in Lloyd Banks. If this is closed as a delete, the closing admin may want to dump the text contents of this article into Lloyd Banks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jreferee (talk • contribs) 06:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Merge with artist's page. Joestella 07:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep similar article Cigarettes and Valentines by green day is notable, this was a real album it is sourced, it is both an interesting and notable thing to happen --Childzy ¤ Talk 11:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N requires in-depth coverage that addresses the subject directly in detail. This is not documented by reputable, third party sources. Lloyd Banks himself does not count as a secondary source and the other sources are just non-trivial mentions (a track list). Spellcast 08:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has the potential to have all other information added, at the momment it is a stub. There is nothing wrong with stubs. Unlike mixtapes, this was supposed to be a full studio album and we just need to find reviews etc., --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 09:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are no reviews, sales, certifications, production, themes or anything like that. Again, WP:N requires secondary sources that addresses the subject directly in detail. Lloyd Banks himself and those 2 blogs is not adequate enough. It also fails WP:V because there can never be reliable, third-party sources. There are only track listings in forums, file sharing sites, and blogs, so it's a trivial mention. This is by far from "significant coverage" that addresses the tape in detail. Spellcast 09:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Pretty useful to me. --Football97 17:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Keep because it was a significant event. 81.79.232.196 17:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In-depth reliable sources that is independent of the subject has yet to be addressed (again, Lloyd Banks himself and brief mentions in those blogs don't count). If no reliable, third-party sources can be found, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. This bootleg is no more notable than the dozens of mixtapes I've had deleted in the past week. Some bootlegs are notable such as Prince's The Black Album, but this is not. Spellcast 18:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:-But this was a very notable event. His whole album was stolen and leaked. Agree the page could be expanded, but there is nothing wrong with stubs. -¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 18:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this can't expand into a good or featured article. In the unlikely event that more in-depth sources are found, this can be recreated. But at the moment, this can easily be mentioned in Lloyd Banks. There are even mixtapes more notable than this such as Dedication 2. Spellcast 19:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:41, 8 September 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.