Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariah Carey's fourteenth studio 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 redirect - creation by block evading sock puppet. Article redirected per solution at Mariah Carey's 14th studio album --auburnpilot talk 00:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mariah Carey's fourteenth studio album[edit]

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

This article is has already been created, redirected and protected at Mariah Carey's 14th studio album. User talk:Hashtag beautiful has simply copied the prose here from that article. Unnecessary disambiguation, all he has done is create another article "fourteenth", not "14th", like the original article. Needs to be deleted. — AARON • ^TALK 16:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Fourteenth is the correct way.its amateurish to write it as "14th"......Mariah Carey's 14th studio album article is the one that should be deleted...not this one......the album will be out next month, so it is really useless to delete it now only to re-create it again next month......or you can just re-direct the "Mariah Carey's 14th studio album" article to this article.....simple......Hashtag beautiful (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that you created an already existing article for no reason, and you've filled it with unreliable sources. Delete this one, and keep the original which was created in April. It was stupid to created this again. No, this will be deleted as it's recreation of redirect and protected content. You're just an obsessed fan who isn't abiding by rules. Thanks for putting me into an edit conflict 6 times. — AARON • ^TALK 16:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The other article was protected for no reason, so I was not able to edit it....can you unprotect the 14th studio album article and put the info in this article in it..?.......cause right now it redirects to triaumphant, it should not.....

Because there's not enough information. There's no track listing either. A release date is not enough. Fails notability. Don't bother arguing before you're fighting a losing battle. It was protected partly because of people like you, now you've gone and created this duplicate article for no reason. — AARON • ^TALK 16:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough information...what about 50 Cent's Street King Immortal...it doesnt have a release date, it doesnt have a tracklisting....

Because it has 10x the information, and reliable information. — AARON • ^TALK 16:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources are "Billboard (magazine)", MTV, and Carey's official website....how are these not reliable?50.89.124.11 (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carey's isn't, it's self published. I just removed all the Twitter, Lava Lizard, That Grape Juice and other unreliable sources. There's simply not enough info yet. End of. — AARON • ^TALK 17:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mariah Carey ~~and merge any reliably sourced info there.~~ WP:TOOSOON. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An article has already been created, redirected and protected at Mariah Carey's 14th studio album, so this one should be deleted. It's recreation of content and unnecessary disambiguation. — AARON • ^TALK 17:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are cheap and then protect this one too. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point? One already exists, and it wasn't deleted to stop people like this creating it, instead, he spelt the number out. — AARON • ^TALK 17:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:NALBUMS: No title, and no track listing. While I do appreciate the enthusiasm, I believe it's WP:HAMMERtime. Robin (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry but Arron, Robin, Gene ,and Starcheersspeaksnewslostwars obviously have a personal agenda against Carey...so all of your votes dont count...lets wait for new users:

New Voting Here

Delete They're not biased, there just is not enough information in Independent, reliable sources. WP:HAMMER sums it up well. The album will probably need an article eventually, but probably not until it has a name. Howicus (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^ But the album title will be announced by the end of this week, like in the next couple of days...source: http://www.showbiz411.com/2013/06/05/mariah-carey-new-album-release-date

so, is it really worth deleting it now only to re-create it in a couple of days?....and if some of the other users feel like the article doesnt have enough information, why dont they help by expanding it and add more information instead of nagging?.....seems to me that they are lazy and dont want to put the work and effort to make a good wikipedia article......

Comment Say, I just noticed, but several of the sources in the article, [1], [2], [3] refer to Mariah Carey's thirteenth studio album. Is this an error in the title, or in the sources? Howicus (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And this one [4] is talking about her eleventh album.

^ Well, some say 11 because they are not counting her soundtrack Glitter and her two holiday albums Merry Christmas and Merry Christmas II You.....and some say thirteen because they do count her holiday albums but they don't count Glitter as a studio album...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hashtag beautiful (talk • contribs) 19:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. We've got a release date a month and a half away. We've got loads of information on the album already, despite not knowing its name (which Mariah tweeted that she was choosing last week). — Statυs (talk, contribs) 20:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Status, Mariah Carey's 14th studio album already exists, is redirect for lack of info, and is protected because of edit warring. Therefore this article is not needed. — AARON • ^TALK 21:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being childish Aaron.....whats the diffrence if the other article gets deleted instead of this one?.........Hashtag beautiful (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not being childish, who on earth do you think you are? An article was already created and exists, so this one is superfluous and should be deleted. Christ... — AARON • ^TALK 21:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect the other article to this one....period.Hashtag beautiful (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, because you've recreated an article with content that has been redirect and protected. Recreations get deleted. But you don't know the rules so of course you wouldn't know or care. — AARON • ^TALK 21:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And as I said, you have a personal agenda against Mariah, so your vote doesn't count anyway.Hashtag beautiful (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Err excuse me? Mariah is my favourite singer, not that I have to justify myself to you. You're just an obsessed fan with an agenda of WP:OWN and WP:FANCRUFT. I'm actually reporting you. — AARON • ^TALK 21:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you want...but this article is staying....it will not get deleted....move on......anyway, if you want to get technical, both articles are wrong...because it really is her eleventh studio album......her holidays albums, Merry Christmas and Merry Christmas II You as well as her soundtrack album glitter should not be counted as studio albums...........Hashtag beautiful (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't decide that. You are an obsessed fan and you are emitting strong signs of WP:OWN WP:OWN WP:OWN. You don't own this article. You can be blocked for thinking you do. — AARON • ^TALK 22:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I owned this article.....the sad thing is that you are the one who thinks that you own it.......well, wake up Mr. you dont own this article as well and you dont own any article on wikipedia....you are just a measly editor who bullies new users on the site instead of helping them...Hashtag beautiful (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, listen to yourself. I've had nothing to do with writing either article, your attempts to make yourself look serious is quite funny. You know nothing about Wikipedia. I've been on here years and made over 25,000 edits. You've made 67. Would you like to redefine who is "measly". Point made. I will not be responding to any of your further meaningless scribbles. — AARON • ^TALK 22:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you see that you are the only one who is making a big deal out of this?. Hashtag beautiful (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2013 (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.