Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loud (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 no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 01:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loud (Rihanna album)[edit]

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

Like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Only Girl, upcoming Rihanna release, all sources here are either fan sites, blogs or twitter feeds. The only links here that are slightly acceptable are from MTV, whose articles quote the same things in the blogs and fan sites. None of these confirm the album's title. No official announcement from Def Jam. Too soon. WP:NALBUM, WP:CRYSTAL. - eo (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:NALBUM for pre-release article.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rihanna announced the album on Seacrest this morning. see billboard 74.105.208.27 (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - here is the Billboard link [1] This is promising. If third-party sources begin rolling in, they should be added to the article in place of the questionable links there now. An official record label statement would be nice. - eo (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Typical premature article. Ga Be 19 19:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep - Would be an absurd deletion. If some people on here actually had a brain and understood that a deletion is totally pointless as this page will up again within a months time. The album will be out on 16 November anyway[2] - hardly months or years is it? There is a thing called common sense and for your education here is a link: common sense. Stevo1000 (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the problem is that this article (as it is now) is based almost solely on Rihanna fan sites and blogs. Aside from the MTV link, and now the Billboard link, everything else fails WP:RS. Take everything out of the article that is sourced with an unacceptable link, and what is left? This should be written as an encyclopedia article, not the place for people to come to get the latest Rihanna news. - eo (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I understand what you are saying and you I am in total agreement with you, some who edit Wikipedia are fans who don't know that Wikipedia does have standards it needs to maintain. I would be willing to take the page on my own accord and find some reliable, ideally official sources, but I'm just not willing to do so as there is a chance the page will be deleted and the time invested in sorting the page out will be wasted Stevo1000 (talk) 23:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, if you want to improve the article, go ahead. There's nothing wrong with putting it on a subpage of your own and working on it until there is enough third-party information to warrant its own page. And even if the page is deleted (as opposed to redirected), the deleted versions of the page can be restored at a later time by an admin (so no matter which way you do it, all is not "lost" forever). - eo (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For the majority of references are not site faithful, should be deleted.*Fr@Πkl!nG* (talk) 01:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate or Redirect - I agree that it is pointless that the article be deleted only to be reinstated soon. Is it possible that it could be incubated and worked on in the incubator until closer to the release date? If not, it is best to just redirect it to Rihanna's main article. Adam 94 (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I agree with the person above me. It shouldn't be deleted, as it will be re-created in a few weeks anyway. I agree that it doesn't have enough information, but should be redirected instead. Regards, ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 23:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Might be a good idea to improve the page first. Like I say deleting it would be pointless as the page will pop up again within a few weeks and we'll be at square one again. Also the deletion question mark looming over the page probably deters good Wikipedia users from improving the article as they know their investment in the page will be wasted if it does get deleted. If anything we need to give the page time, I for one would be interested in adding reliable sources and overall improving the page, but the threat that contributions could be wasted deters me from doing so Stevo1000 (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for present. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep it has been confirmed by Rihanna and her Label and if you delete you will have to reupload it again anyway. Just improve the article a bit and it will be fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.229.132 (talk) 09:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or at least delete the 'release history' part which is ludicrous as it has not been released yet. No encyclopedia would contain future events and, as I have seen mentoined before on this site: 'Wikipedia is not a crystal ball' 14:22, 9 September 2010

Keep a newsletter has been sent out confirming all the information by her label. Regards, ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 01:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or incubate so far i have yet to read a valid reason for a keep. Albums fails WP:HAMMER (No Cover, No Tracklisting). Fails WP:NALBUM. The references are crap, blog after blog after blog and fansites? are we joking?. Album is three months away, article is no where near notable yet. I would strongly suggest an incubation. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

undeniable REDIRECT, there is not a case for this to be kept. More than half of the sources are unreliable or impropper. As an impending release it should be redirected although I think its also obvious that it will need protection to because users will keep reopening this article. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 16:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

undeniable, obvious KEEP come on people. if there is a page for Kanye West's "Dark Twisted Fantasy" (a redirect from "5th Studio Album") then what's the problem with this entry? i don't see how an MTV link, a Billboard link and Rihanna's own words are not enough. Whose reporting are you waiting for, the London Independent? the Montreal Gazette? let's keep this article and clean it up as we go along! (Mikoism (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Not a valid reason. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist" - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or incubate: Keep the page, as the album will be released in 2 months. More info will be available soon. And I agree with Lakeshade. Silvergoat (talk∙contrib) 09:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just keep it, it's going to be re-opened again anyway or have to be created again which is stupid and a waste of time. Album is two months from released, a single has already been released. The page can only expand from now onwards. To me, it's an obvious keep, or a re-direct from the albums name back to "Rihanna". It's just hassle to delete to and have to re-do it all again. The album and title has been confirmed by both Rihanna and the label. I think i have made my point. calvin999 21:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvin999 (talk • contribs)
Keep - even if it will never be released, the album seems to meet the general notability guideline as it is. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:49, 14 September 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.