Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beach Cruiser

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. causa sui (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beach Cruiser[edit]

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

This album was meant to be released in 2006. However it has been pushed back 17 times. The latest release date is August - The likleyhood would be this will never be released. So there already one big reason - It has no confirmed track listing etc.. which is a requirement. No coverage of the singles in widespread coverage. More so this article has multiple fansite sources, the only one that is not is MTV. Then you have billboard used as a source citing a song that isn't confirmed to be one this album. So really it has no sources and there is a lot of trivial info. Rain the 1 ^BAM 18:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 26 June 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) 00:58, 2 July 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--there are multiple independent sources listed in the article, and the album has already had 2 charting singles with guest appearances by unquestionably notable people like T-Pain and Lil Wayne. I'd say that this album passes the notability bar even if it ends up never being released. The other option would be to merge the material to Glasses Malone discography, but there's enough here to sustain an independent article per WP:MUSIC. Meelar (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment--as to your concern about sources, I'm not sure why you wouldn't accept the ones listed in the article. I'm not a hip-hop expert by any means, but they appear to be independent of the subject of the article, not user-generated content, and published by music journalists. It would be one thing if the facts in the article were seriously in question, and if the NY Times were to publish something directly contradicting Hip Hop DX I would go with the Times. But I can't see what part of WP:RS justifies simply ignoring the sources cited without any reason to do so. Meelar (talk) 18:11, 10 July 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.