Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Problématique (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 to Feed the Beast (Kim Petras album). — Amakuru (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Problématique (album)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not really notable? Nothing that couldn't be simply a few sentences on the Kim Petras page. Theknine2 (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 19:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The half of the sources which actually discuss the project in any sort of depth are all restating the same story, and the other half make no mention of it. The most relevant info is already covered in Kim Petras#2020–present: Scrapped studio album and "Unholy"; a redirect there would make the most sense. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I don't object to deletion if consensus ends up leaning in that direction. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:UNRELEASED. There are several reliable sources about Petras' decision not to release the album constituting WP:SIGCOV. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ I think the WP:UNRELEASED criteria does not really apply, because the coverage seems to be about Kim Petras, not about the unreleased album, yet WP:UNRELEASED seems to require independent coverage. 128.6.36.94 (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Currently blocked. Strike comment? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting that the IP editor's block only lasted for 72 hours so it should be lifted now. I don't know if that means their vote remains invalid or not. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or possibly Redirect to Kim Petras#2020–present: Scrapped studio album and "Unholy". I have gotten mixed up in this article before. First, WP:UNRELEASED has specific criteria requiring coverage of the album as a distinct entity that has some hope of being released or compiled someday. This one is just a scrapped project with no distinct tracklist, and a few rumored songs that will probably end up on other albums anyway. The title Problématique, despite being used in a lot of sources, was merely used to pre-hype a vague project idea before it got off the ground. Most of the sources used in this article are actually about Petras's general activities during that period, plus a little hype about the collab with Paris Hilton. Unlike well-known unreleased albums with a history and news coverage, such as Street King Immortal, this one was just an idea and not a distinct entity that deserves an article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least for now (disclaimer: page creator). There are multiple independent reliable sources specifically covering the topic. Additionally, there are notable songs associated with this project ("Future Starts Now", "Coconuts"), so more could be added about those tracks. I would actually prefer to wait until more information is made public about her next studio album because then we'll have a better sense of which songs from this project might carry over. Some of this article's text could even be converted into a 'Background' section of her next album, assuming sources connect the dots. Funny how editors are using WP:UNRELEASED to justify both deleting and keeping this entry. I will concede, WP:UNRELEASED says: "This generally applies to more high-profile projects, and an album should not generally have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label." However, to me this is to prevent editors from creating new entries about rumored upcoming albums, not to disregard the possible notability of well-documented but scrapped projects. WP:UNRELEASED does say "An unreleased album may qualify for an article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it", after all. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think album is any more notable than Charli XCX's scrapped third studio album, which used to have a Wikipedia article but was deleted. --Damage Ensues (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your source assessment is saying what happened to a similar article? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article did remind me of the former XCX World article, yeah. Not to mention that XCX World did contain more content, including a much longer list of scrapped songs. Theknine2 (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (continuing the sub-discussion above) - I consider the deletion consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unreleased third studio album (Charli XCX) to be a useful precedent for this one. In neither case was an album completed and neither got too far beyond pre-production. Regardless of the "unreleased" question, an album article here should still be about an album, not an amorphous project with a few possible song placements that never got off the ground. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The prose specifically refers to an 18-track album. Feed the Beast has been announced, so we may learn more about Problématique in the near future. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This will probably end up as "No Consensus" for a pretty good reason... lack of information on which to build a consensus. Media outlets say there are 18 songs but are suspiciously unable to provide their titles. It was set to be released in Summer 2022 but there was never a formal record company announcement of a distinct release date and then no such date was formally cancelled. Some reviewers bemoaned the album's demise but gave no information about any of the songs supposedly therein (except for the few that were leaked). I suspect that the whole story is over-hyped as an excuse for Petras's lack of material during the period. But Kim and the management have made the world believe that a whole album was completed then killed by vague villains. So other people suspect that there was really an album. Neither of us will get much further. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"except for the few that were leaked"? Uh, I'm guilty of listening to Problématique in its entirety quite a few times... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And yet we still don't have confirmed song titles nor confirmation that whatever leaked was part of an album that was confirmed to be released on a confirmed date then confirmed to have been cancelled. This is all a masterpiece of speculation. (Off-topic: Did you pay Kim Petras appropriate compensation for those songs you listened to?) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She said we could listen to the album, so I do! :) I see "Hit It from the Back", "Revelations", and "Sex Talk" will appear on Feed the Beast. I'm familiar with these tracks from Problématique. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 12:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Problématique situation reminds me of Britney Spears's "lost" album Original Doll, which was scrapped by her label and never had a proper release date or track listing beyond "Mona Lisa"; many Original Doll songs were eventually leaked. Original Doll has been often discussed both in the Britney fandom and the general media (I'd argue to a greater extent than Problématique), yet does not have its own article: Original Doll redirects to Blackout. I believe we could do something similar here, with Problématique redirecting to Feed the Beast rather than a section of the Kim Petras article. The fact that the Problématique songs "Coconuts", "Hit It from the Back", "Revelations", and "Sex Talk" all made it onto Feed the Beast makes me think that discussion of Problématique could be included in the Background section of the Feed the Beast article. Bizarre Bizarre^{Talk modern to me} 20:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per precedent set by the Charli XCX album, or redirect to Feed the Beast, since three tracks rumored to be on the album made it to Feed the Beast. While there are rumors that this album might be released after Feed the Beast, we can just recreate the article if it actually happens. Itsquietuptown ✉️📜 14:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are also rumors that the tracks from Problématique on Feed the Beast have been mixed differently. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Request: Since there's a chance this article might be deleted altogether, may I request to have the page redirected instead, in order to preserve the article history? I think the comments above suggest a redirect is more appropriate than outright page deletion, especially since at least some of the content could be used for Feed the Beast. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:15, 30 May 2023 (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.