Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess DisneyMania

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. Wizardman 04:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Princess DisneyMania[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Not notable without substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. None provided (amazon link is not "coverage"), none found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is almost certain to be released (all the major retailers have it as a pre-order) and all previous albums in the series have been substantial hits. With that said it seems like pointless beaurocracy to delete an article just to re-create it in a couple of weeks. No objection to deletion if it somehow fails to be released, though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - First, per the article, this is not part of the Disneymania series, it's the first in the Princess DisneyMania series. How does the article know this? It's in the crystal ball. The tracklist is also from the crystal ball. It will be followed by DisneyMania 9 in 2009, according to the crystal ball. From non-crystal sources, we have a title and a release date. If that is "information ... confirmed by reliable sources", I'm Peter Pan (I'm not). And, per WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS: "Until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future album, early information about it should be in the artist's article only, not in a separate article about the unreleased album." Granted, there is no "artist's article", unless we select one of the names from the crystal ball. The chronology listing on DisneyMania 6, though at odds with the idea that this is a different series, at least doesn't create info from magic pixie dust. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Andrew Lenahan. Voices4ever 14:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment again, in what way does this article meet notability requirements? Is anything but the title and release date verifiable? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have just restored the AfD notice to the article for the third time and requested semi-protection to prevent a fourth removal. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Looks like a fourth removal happened anyway. --- Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per nom. There are no reliable sources to be seen (Amazon isn't a reliable source and should never be linked on Wikipedia IMO). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 01:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:CRYSTALballery. No comment on the notability of the album, however. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just restored the AfD for the fifth time and requested page protection again. Also noted the appearance of a completely different tracklisting and the re-post of DisneyMania 7. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sourcing, no apparent notability.
Kww (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Restored the AfD for the sixth time. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:12, 30 July 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.