Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyoncé's Fifth Studio Album (2nd nomination)

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. postdlf (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beyoncé's Fifth Studio Album[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON and WP:HAMMER. Previously speedy deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyoncé's Fifth Studio Album. GregJackP Boomer! 21:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt I haven't seen yet any album called "(Artist's) (Number) Studio Album" in all my years here. All sourced to either WP:ADVERTs or people who don't understand the 'no recording' policy at concerts. Nate • (chatter) 23:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt - Per WP:NALBUMS, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:TOOSOON and WP:HAMMER. (Artist's) (Number) Studio Album are practically never ever appropriate. STATic message me! 12:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NALBUMS. Koala15 (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:HAMMER Adabow (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all existing sources in the article are unreliable and, it's impossible to accurately search for anymore given we don't know the album's name ... which is kind of what WP:HAMMER is all about. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge to Beyonce Knowles. Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty! 17:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly who is going to type "Beyoncé's Fifth Studio Album" into the search box? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure somebody who heard Beyonce was doing a new album would. Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty! 19:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In France, maybe. The rest of us don't have access to a "é" on our keyboards rather easily. Nate • (chatter) 00:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on the "2013: Fitfh studio album" section of the main Beyonce Knowles article, there is an indication that reliable sources are covering the fifth album. I'mjust suggesting a redirect or more info from the reliable sources cited in the main article be included here. Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty! 01:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll suggest a Weak keep for now because of that. Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty! 01:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while the sources described in the article aren't reliable, information exists for this topic in sources generally respected as reliable, and easily found by typing in 'beyonce's next album' or 'beyonce's new album', and already listed on Beyoncé_Knowles. these include MTV, billboard, vogue and rolling stone. the topic is therefore notable. WP:NALBUMS includes a provision for the inclusion of unreleased materials that are verifiable, which, while not entirely relevant, i believe should infer that the verifiable information on this topic should justify it's inclusion under the spirit of this criteria. because the example for WP:TOOSOON refers to media specific guidelines for notability, i believe the prior justification extends to this criteria as well. this means any deletions should be justified by WP:NOT or perhaps an argument that the information is better suited to inclusion on beyoncés main page. I believe the latter argument is inappropriate because it would require a merge-unmerge process once we get a name, while keeping it in a separate, vaguely named article would ease the transition once a name is found. As for WP:NOT, the boundary between reliable source information and reliable source speculation is pretty thin, and I am making an individual decision that the extant information is the former. romnempire (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2013 (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.