Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ericka (album)

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ericka (album)[edit]

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

Unreleased studio album. So this means it never charted. No coverage in independent reliable sources. Fails criteria for WP:NALBUMS and fails GNG. This artist produced a song which charted at 49 or 50 entitled "So Good" (see WP:Articles for deletion/"So Good"). But this has nothing to do with an unreleased album with no coverage in reliable sources. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 08:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 08:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to article on Ericka Yancey. The album is currently unreleased, so it is difficult to see what is notable about it. Vorbee (talk) 10:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: as I said on the "So Good" AfD, it's not at all certain that Ericka Yancey herself is notable, so I'm not sure whether a merge and redirect is the answer if the artist's article is also likely to be deleted. Richard3120 (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fancruft; not independently notable and no sources to meet WP:SIGCOV. An an "unreleased debut studio album", this is extremely unlikely to be notable, while the article lists no 3rd party sources, so there's nothing to merge. The artist herself is unlikely to be notable either, so no point in redirecting. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If Ericka Yancey is unlikely to be notable, shouldn't her entry be nominated for deletion?Vorbee (talk) 08:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An unreleased album; we aren't talking about The Beach Boys' botched "symphony to God" here, the recording artist is a barely notable R&B musician. There is no indication whatsoever of passing WP:GNG and I am not entirely sure we can use WP:NALBUM as a measuring stick since, officially, there is no album.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... For an unreleased album, it sure got good reviews, see Vibe and Detroit Free Press and some of its songs charted in Billboard R&B [1] [2]. Not sure whether it's enough to establish notability but the claim "no coverage in reliable sources" can easily be disproven via WP:BEFORE. Regards So Why 14:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per TheGracefulSlick. Whether songs that would have been on the album appeared on charts is irrelevant. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG - apparently promotional copies were sent out for reviewers and after the singles failed to chart, it was shelved. There are apparently a few copies floating around [[3]], but there's not enough to substantiate this article. Furthermore, with no output that attained any notability in nearly 20 subsequent years, I'm going to suggest that the Ericka Yancey article is a candidate for deletion. WP:TOOSOON doesn't apply. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:33, 4 October 2017 (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.