Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mixtape Messiah 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 2 and 5, keep 3. I know about hip hop, those sources are hardly reliable for 2 Secret account 18:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mixtape Messiah 2[edit]

Mixtape Messiah 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Also nomination

Fails WP:NM, non-notable mixtapes with hardly-reliable sources.DiverseMentality 20:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete- recreation of previously deleted content. (I think). IF its not, then a simple delete for all will be my answer. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is this up for deletion these nerds already deleted Mixtape Messiah 4 for no reason, this is blasphemy. Wikipedia is going downhill with these mods or whatever they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dc 0808 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the Mixtape Messiah series getting deleted? It's been released and it's relevant. It's one of most known mixtape series and it's one of the reasons Chamillionaire is known. The series is note-able and should all be restored. SE KinG (talk) 08:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say keep. His tapes are more known than his albums so why would you delete the mixtapes and not the albums? Non-notable mixtapes? Thats merely an opinion, these mixtapes are a symbol in most of the southern states of the USA and even well known in Europe. Hardly reliable resources? I think the fact the mixtapes have been released in the past is reliable enough. Clueless, all I have to add to whoever nominated this.Carlols 88 (talk) 08:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I think we all need to go read WP:NM. His mixtapes are more known than his album? Please lead me to a reliable source that says his mixtapes are more known than his commercial albums. Also, please read WP:NALBUMS; it states: Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. If someone can expand these articles with significant independent coverage from reliable sources, then the articles can be kept. At this time, they are not notable. DiverseMentality 18:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. How can you even define notable with "independent coverage from reliable sources", I mean come on..just cause they're not notable to you, doesn't mean they're not notable for anyone. There are plenty of people that agree with me if you say these mixtapes are one of the most well known series in the industry right now. I remain stated that the fact these mixtapes have been released is a source reliable enough to know all you need to know about the mixtapes. I might as well open a blogsite with all the previous release dates, tracks, producers and names of his mixtape series and say that is a third party source, not everything can be proven by third party sources, because most of these tapes are based on opinions of people. Its a shame people start these nominations simply because they can't relate to the music. Carlols 88 (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The release of a mixtape doesn't justify its notability; our notability guideline clearly states this. If a mixtape it not covered by third-party reliable source, it's not notable enough, again, by our notability guideline. I didn't start the nominations because I can't "relate to the music", that has nothing to do with the nomination. I nominated these articles because lack notability. DiverseMentality 22:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Will that do? Im not quite sure what you consider to be a reliable source and what not, so I just googled it and this is what came up, for you to decide whether or not its reliable. Im probably not doing this according to your guidelines, but Im not into your rules and everything, my sincere apoligies for that. Carlols 88 (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The two links to Amazon only confirm the release, and as I said before, release of a mixtape alone doesn't justify notability. Sixshot, RapReviews and Rap Basement are not reliable sources, (and to add, Rap Basement only offers the track listing and a download link to the mixtape). If you're unsure if a website is reliable, ask at the reliable source noticeboard should help you. DiverseMentality 23:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are you people deleting these mixtapes? Of course they are notable, and how are those websites not reliable? They're normal websites like 90% of all other sources for other articles. I should stop donating to wikimedia if more articles on wikipedia are going to be deleted like these. El0i (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the most notable mixtape out of all of them, this mixtape won best mixtape of 2007 at the O-zone.Xx1994xx (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep #3, delete #2 & #5. #3 was reviewed by the New York Times, for crying out loud. #2 was reviewed on a number of hip hop websites (and King, a men's magazine that includes some music content—not a music mag) but that alone does not indicate notability to me. To my eyes #2 & #5 fail WP:MUSIC#Albums. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 14:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see how one review by the New York Times establishes notability. DiverseMentality 23:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: agree with nominator, notability not established. JamesBurns (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 13:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 2 and 3, Delete 5: I think that one New York Times review for 3 shows notability and I also think that multiple reviews for 2 show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, they are legitimate, notable mixtapes. I see no reason for any of these pages to be deleted. Andreandre (talk) 04:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Suprised it has not been suggested. If 2 out of 3 are notabile enough to have perma-stub, would be far better to merge all and redirect to the larger article. Only a merged article would ever have a chance at GA or FA, and all notable subjects should have a chance of that.Yobmod (talk) 11:17, 4 December 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mixtape_Messiah_2&oldid=1138091114"