Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elope (album)/2

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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elope (album)[edit]

The page is here since 2008, but this album has never been released, I think it should be redirected to the artist's page. No tracklisting, no release date. Things like this shouldn't stay on an enciclopedy. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 11:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article is well-referenced and detailed. If it was 2008 or the article a stub or start, I would vote delete. Although I personally don't care if it every comes out, there appears to be a lot of anticipation for it this year in the news and searches. The album seems to fail WP:NALBUM though in regards to pre-release as nothing has been confirmed other than the title. --NortyNort (Holla) 12:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There was another AFD for this article as well in September 2009.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As the article's primary contributor, I'm not really sure if this album will actually get released. It was on track, but after the singer's divorce (her now ex-husband produced the whole thing), it's status is up in the air. That being said, I've made sure to include as much referenced information as I can. While the album may not be released for a while, I don't see why this article couldn't be kept. It's well sourced and all of the information is still relevant, no matter when or under what name it gets released. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 06:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It fails WP:NALBUMS for no release date and no tracklisting. And wikipedia isnt a crystal ball, this page is well referenced but honestly, at the moment useless. The album won't probably be released, why keep an article about an unreleased album? ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 10:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well even WP:NALBUMS states that "In a few special cases, an unreleased album may qualify for an advance article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it—for example, Guns 'n Roses' 2008 album Chinese Democracy had an article as early as 2004." While there is no track-listing or release date, there still is enough properly referenced information about it. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 09:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice note Cornucopia! Ga Be 19 02:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Christina Milian. This one is tricky because so much reliable info exists on the album whether it's going to be released or not, and I'm not sure if the crystal ball rule totally applies. But we do need for the album to really exist in order to have a viable album article. As a fair compromise, the fact that the album is in the works, and the sources saying so, can be merged to the artist's article (and maybe moved back later if the album ever becomes a reality). --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the album has been delayed a lot, does not mean it should be merged. The article has a lot of useful information. I don't think it should be merged, at least not until we have further information on the status of the album. For now, I think it should remain an article. ~ ΣПDiПG-STΛЯT (talk) 04:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about an unexisting thing. This album will probably never be released, so it's unexisting. I dont think wikipedia needs articles even for unexisting things. It should be merged to the artist's page, but it shouldn't have an article all for it. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 22:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If definitely exists; whether or not it gets released soon is another question. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 06:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not another question, a page can be well referenced, but if there's no need for it to have a own page, it can be merged without any problems. You wrote this article two years ago, and now it's at the same point. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 20:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that the album will never come out is considered to be original research, which is against Wikipedia rules. "The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources." This is a very well references article that is full of information. ~ ΣПDiПG-STΛЯT (talk) 05:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the article is sourced well enough to be kept. As of now, the album is still scheduled to be released in the upcoming months, so even more details should surface soon. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 05:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Enough sourcing and a well developed article, however the nom deserves credit for bringing it here rather than unilaterally making the change. Close issue, maybe deserving a merge later, but appears to have been discussed enough. Probably should be updated, or watched for that. Shadowjams (talk) 09:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong delete unreleased album, doesnt need its own page. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 18:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep/Redirect - It's well sourced, and a long enough page to keep. Redirect for the time being. Ga Be 19 02:24, 30 August 2010 (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.