Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fourth Studio Album (Rihanna 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 Keep - I do note that the landscape changed significantly during the course of this AFD, the early delete votes are no longer relevant. –xeno^talk 13:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Studio Album (Rihanna album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM, ~~WP:HAMMER, and WP:CRYSTAL~~ as an upcoming album with no confirmed ~~title~~ or tracklist. ~~I think this should be merged to the Rihanna article and then deleted as an unlikely search term.~~ Chasewc91 (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Changed simply to delete per TenPoundHammer.~~Chasewc91 (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rihanna now that this has a title. It still isn't notable enough for an article as the tracklist hasn't been confirmed, and – as mentioned by other editors – much of the info from this article is present there. Restore when the tracklist is confirmed.

Although I have changed my !vote to something other than delete, this should not be speedily kept as there are still delete arguments present. Chasewc91 (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As more information becomes available in the coming days, this article would become more valuable/reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.150.29.221 (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And when it does, this article can be recreated. There is not enough material to warrant an article at this point. Chasewc91 (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HAMMER, not enough information yet. Can't merge and delete, that would violate GFDL; there's nothing to merge anyway. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 00:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This album is heavily hyped and will be out in a couple of months anyway. We already have a lot of information regarding the songwriters who will be contributing to the album. There's no point in deleting it. Tikkuy (talk) 03:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL. All the verifiable encyclopaedic information that currently exists is already at Rihanna's article. Thryduulf (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Crystal. Recreate when title and tracklist are known.—Kww(talk) 13:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hesitant Keep. The Rolling Stone article and nearby release date means there's no feasible way to keep this article from existing.—Kww(talk) 16:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The AfD tag and various bits of sourced information have been removed several times by anonymous editors since the start of this discussion. As a result I have semi-protected the article until 13:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC) (7 days from when I semi-protected it). If this discussion is closed before then, the closing administrator should consider removing the protection at the same time. Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and I'd normally be the first person to vote delete). People are taking WP:HAMMER as law when it is not the be-all and end-all; far from it. The article may not be titled and a tracklisting is yet to be released, but surely the (sourced) infomation on production and the pre-release publicity is enough to warrent an article? Also, can someone direct me to the part of WP:CRYSTAL that this fails? Dale 17:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the reliable info on production and such seems to be present at Rihanna, however, which is why I think we don't need this article. Especially since no one will be searching for "Fourth Studio Album (Rihanna album)" to get to the album's article when it's released. Chasewc91 (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NALBUMS. ~~Title~~ and track list are unknown, and there's about a stub's worth of verified information on it so far. Info about this album, for now, belongs at the artist's page, where it is covered already. Cliff smith ^talk 07:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The title has been confirmed, yes, but I still think that the ≤2 paragraphs here belong at the artist's page until the entire track list is confirmed as well. Cliff smith ^talk 00:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've moved the article to Rated R (Rihanna album) since it's now got a title, per Rolling Stone. Amalthea 16:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to have enough third party confirmations and press at this point... although I am curious to know how a Ryan Seacrest tweet became a reliable source? - eo (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her label has confirmed the album title and release date. MTV Crumbsucker (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a confirmed album and has an official release date. There is enough information here to keep it... 16:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.180.129 (talk)
Keep Title, first single, release date, song info. What more do youi need?--TrEeMaNsHoE (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources provided to confirm title, singles, producers, release, guests, etc. SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk. 21:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources, including Rihanna's official site, have confirmed the album's name, release date, and first single. The release is only a month away, meaning information relating to the album should just keep coming in. ---Shadow (talk) 02:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Good amount of sources, album to be released next month, no need in deleting now. Candyo32 (talk) 03:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Passes WP:N by a fair amount. Also per Candyo32. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of references CloversMallRat (talk) 01:48, 23 October 2009 (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.