Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooklyn Girls

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 Charles Hamilton (rapper). (and merge the discography) Black Kite (t) (c) 11:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn Girls[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages, see discussion below:

With all due respect to Mr Hamilton, I wonder if we're not going a bit overboard on covering this subject, and if there's a bit of promotional editing going on here. I'm willing to concede that Charles Hamilton (rapper) is an OK article to have (notwithstanding that its heavily tagged and apparently needs some cleanup). Hamilton is notable (I guess, maybe) but seems to be only marginally notable. He has, after all, never released an actual album on any label (to my knowledge), for instance. Given that, do we really need a number of articles on his various works sufficient to make up a category or navbox?

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Herostratus (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect[edit]

Brooklyn Girls. It's a song. It did reach the Billboard Hot 100, but at #97 (according to the article anyway -- there's no ref), and doesn't appear to have any other markers of notability (such as an article about the song or whatever). Fails WP:NSONG.
It's Charles Hamilton. It's a mixtape, or at least its listed as a mixtape at Hamilton's discography. I'm a little confused, because I thought mixtapes were compilations of existing songs, but the article gives a track listing of songs composed by Hamilton. At any rate, there's no indication that it was released as an actual album by an actual record company, and there's no indication that it meets the WP:NALBUMS criteria of "mentioned in multiple reliable sources" (or any sources at all, for that matter).

Then there are three entities listed at Hamilton's discography as "free albums" as opposed to "studio albums". I'd infer that that means they weren't released by an actual record company.

The Pink Lavalamp. No indication that it meets the WP:NALBUMS criteria of "mentioned in multiple reliable sources".
Normalcy (Charles Hamilton album). No indication that it meets the WP:NALBUMS criteria of "mentioned in multiple reliable sources".
Tafietu. No indication that it meets the WP:NALBUMS criteria of "mentioned in multiple reliable sources". The articles states that it "was slated to be Charles Hamilton's debut album" but there's no indication that it was released by an actual record company.

Arguable[edit]

Then there are two entities listed at Hamilton's discography as "studio albums". Actual studio albums step up a bit in notability, since least someone put in enough effort to rent a studio, sign a contract, and make arrangements for cover art and manufacture and distribution and so forth. However, neither of these entities have actually been released by an actual record company, as near as I can tell.

This Perfect Life. The article lede states "This Perfect Life was supposed to be the debut studio album by American rapper Charles Hamilton, but ended up being shelved by Interscope". So hmmm. Interscope is an actual entity and is even part of Universal Music Group, and Hamilton appears to have had some sort of relationship with them. So points for that. However, after a good deal of "was to be" and "was going to be" and "would have" and "planned to" the article comes to "However the album was never released because of Hamilton getting dropped from Interscope on September 19, 2009 for unknown reasons". There was a little bit of buzz about the album because Hamilton credited the respected J Dilla as producer, but it turns out that Mr Dilla would have been unavailable due to a previous long-standing engagement with the Grim Reaper. There are six refs in the article, and at least one of them (here) is a dead-tree entity, XXL (magazine).
My Heart (Charles Hamilton album). But the article lede is "My Heart is the upcoming debut studio album by Charles Hamilton", and we all know WP:CRYSTAL. It's to be on NewCo, and I don't know who NewCo is but they don't have an article here, which most labels of any notability do. The material was recorded in 2010 -- two songs were released in the spring of 2010 and one in the fall of 2010 -- but according to the article "The album has been postponed because Charles has yet to sign off on the publishing for the album". Whether there's any more recent news on the project I don't know. There's only on ref (sohh.com -- whether that a reliable source I don't know) and so there's no indication that it meets the WP:NALBUMS criteria of "mentioned in multiple reliable sources".

Merge[edit]

Charles Hamilton discography. It's arguable that Hamilton isn't notable enough to have his own discography article -- and, after all, he's never released an actual album which I think that most artists with discography articles have done. It's a pretty long article, though, and merging all of into Charles Hamilton (rapper) would make that article pretty long. Perhaps the mixtape section could be dispensed with, not sure. Herostratus (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Redirect all, except merge Charles Hamilton discography into Charles Hamilton (rapper). Keeping the discography separate for article-length reasons would be OK too, I don't really care. The only arguable entity is This Perfect Life, based on the XXL magazine article ref. However, the WP:NALBUMS criteria is "mentioned in multiple reliable sources" and I don't see any of the other article refs as being of very high quality, so I vote to redirect that article also. Nominator's comment. Herostratus (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
redirect all. this artist seems to be mainly known for being featured on the cover of the Freshmen 09' XXL magazine and being "the cousin of famous rapper MC Lyte." i dont know the policies as well as herostratus, but his points seem valid. the main article reads like a puff piece on Hamilton. i think i proded the main article once upon a time and found out swiftly that he is notable, but this seems like overcoverage for an artist who probably hasnt released a studio album yet. -badmachine 16:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a lack of understanding here of hip hop in the 2000s and beyond, and a high likelihood of independent coverage of several, perhaps all, of these releases. Charles Hamilton was one of the most talked-about rappers for a period around 2008-2009, before his star rapidly faded due to a variety of factors. This huge batch nomination is asking too much of volunteers - would you consider withdrawing some, for instance "Brooklyn Girls" which has the Hot 100 charting entry, per WP:nsong, and This Perfect Life, which has at least the XXL sourcing, so that it is more manageable to seek sources for the articles remaining? The discography article should of course stand also, with mixtape section intact. 86.44.18.93 (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A variety of factors indeed. Well no, I'm not going to withdraw any of the nominations (even if I could); you're free to argue against them. I'm not nominating the article Charles Hamilton (rapper) and I concede his (marginal) notability, but not only has he never released an actual album on any actual label (even a non-notable one) but he's never had even a regional tour. Do we really need nine articles to cover his corpus? For comparison, Mikhail Lermontov also has nine articles for chrissakes, aren't we getting a bit out of proportion here? I concede that he's "mastered the art of internet self-promotion" as Fader says, and bully for him, but we don't need to be part of that.

I'll include "Brooklyn Girls" as arguable along with This Perfect Life. The other entries are no-brainer automatic deletes in my opinion. When I say "arguable" I mean that an argument can be made for them, but an extremely weak one and one that I don't agree with. WP:NSONGS does say "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts... are probably notable" but also says "All articles on... songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources" and "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article", and I don't think that we generally include songs just because they reached #97 on the Billboard Charts. Herostratus (talk) 04:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lol, i'm afraid we do have to be part of that if he's done a good enough job of it. but perhaps he hasn't! it's too much work for me to ascertain in any case, so no vote. 86.44.18.93 (talk) 10:25, 21 August 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, causa sui (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If even the nominator thinks different things should be done with different articles, then it was probably a Bad Idea(tm) to start one AFD over them. causa sui (talk) 17:51, 24 August 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.