Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mannequin Factory

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 Porcelain Black. MBisanz ^talk 00:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mannequin Factory[edit]

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

Per WP:NALBUMS, "an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label." The release date, if the article is any indication, has been postponed for years - despite the infobox listing the release date as November 2014, the album still has yet to see release. What's more, this album fails the GNG as most of the sources used here are not about this album - but rather are about the artist. That demonstrates the notability of the artist, but not this album. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to artist (or just delete) until this sees actual release. This closely resembles a Wikipedia article, but doesn't stand up as one under closer examination. I'm quite sure it'll warrant an article on release - although definitely not the present article - but not right now. (This reminds me of the ridiculously overdetailed Jessica Simpson articles several years ago.) - David Gerard (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Porcelain Black until and unless it gets released and/or more sources. There is a lot of good information here, and there's no sense in deleting it rather than trimming it back at a later date when the article passes WP:GNG. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:48, 22 December 2014 (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.