Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T.I.'s seventh 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 delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NALBUMS. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

T.I.'s seventh studio album[edit]

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

A disputed PROD. A fairly clear application of WP:TenPoundHammer's Law and, as per WP:MUSIC, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Also as per WP:MUSIC, time enough for this album if and when the album is titled and released. A useful quote from WP:NALBUMS: "[G]enerally, 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." Accounting4Taste:talk 21:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:HAMMER. What else do I need to say at this point? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Being the creator of the article, I have a strong opinion to keep this article based on the fact that all information given is cited by a reliable source. TenPoundHammer's Law states that "There are occasional exceptions to this law, as sometimes a future album will contain enough verifiable information for a decent article even if the title is not known." This is an exception. Accounting4Taste said on the album's talk page that the sources presented were not reliable to pass off the article. Which does not make any sense considering that MTV is one of the most used websites for music information and is most likely used on 99% of all notable album articles. There is no reason for Crystal Ball to affect anyone's judgement because although it may not be titled, the album is confirmed to be in the process of recording. Co-founder of T.I.'s record label, Jason Geter, even tells MTV that the album has a summer release. There are articles with less information presented that are not being put up for deletion including Lemar's 5th Studio Album, Ghost, Z², Love King, and multiple others. If an album title WAS presented what would change besides the page name, infobox, and leading sentence? Nothing. An article should not have to have an official name to be reliable. SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk. 00:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I don't think that the meager sources are enough to warrant a whole article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, how many sources are needed to confirm an album? Because if four reliable sources don't cut it, I wanna know how many will. (Not to mention two of those sources cite statements made from Grand Hustle Records and UMG.) SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk. 05:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Well Mr. Hammer, I decided to check out MULTIPLE other places to get some sources. VH1 XXL Magazine Prefix Magazine Prefix Magazine (again...) Trap Muzik (T.I.'s OFFICIAL site) BET. Is that enough sources to prove that this album is confirmed? SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk. 05:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This album will likely become notable when it gets closer to release, but at this time there is no confirmed track listing, no album title and no release date. Very little significant coverage in independent reliable sources; too much crystalballing to satisfy WP:NALBUMS. Adding the few sources of this article to T.I.'s main page seems appropriate enough for now. --Volbeatfan (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete Shadowjams (talk) 11:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources are plentiful. A clearly notable future event. --Pink Bull 15:30, 3 March 2010 (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.