Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tha Carter V (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tha Carter V[edit]

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

This article is about an alleged album. Bordering on a hoax. The page was created over four years ago, and this alleged album still has not been released. The text of the article says it was recorded in 2011, which extends the 4 years to 6 years. I tried to redirect, but it was reversed based on the amount of references.

Without it being released, without a release date announced, and without any tracks being released in advance of the album... it is time to get rid of the article. Kellymoat (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the massive number of sources presently in the article by any number of extremely reliable sources. (MTV, HiphopDX, XXL, etc). An album does not need to be released to to be notable - note the years and years Chinese Democracy existed before release, or Detox (album) for that matter. Truly, truly terrible nomination, showing a complete misunderstanding of our notability standards. Please consider withdrawing this nomination. Sergecross73 msg me 01:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. I will not withdraw the nomination. Regardless of how many magazines have fallen for this hoax, the subject of the article does not exist. Kellymoat (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That makes even less sense than your nomination. Unreleased albums are not "hoaxes". Hoaxes are deliberate lies portrayed as truth. Do you have any evidence for such an outlandish claim? Even if you did, it wouldnt matter, as it still wouldn't negate third party reliable source coverage, which is the ultimate requirement here. Sergecross73 msg me 01:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After six years, with no album, how can it not be a hoax. Those "reliable" sources are simply putting out press releases that the artist tells them to put out. They don't have the album either.

That's my evidence of it being a hoax. THERE'S NO ALBUM. No one can prove that it is anything other than an album because there isn't one. Kellymoat (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A hoax would only be if he spoke about making an album without any intent of actually making one, and without actually recording anything. There is no proof of such a scenario. Just because there wasn't a commercial release doesn't make it a hoax. It could just be recorded music sitting in a studio. But again, none of that has anything to do with Wikipedia's notability standards, I'm just disputing your dubious claims with that. To meet the WP:GNG, you need multiple, third party sources discussing the subject in significant detail. This article has way more than what is generally considered a minimal amount to meet the GNG. Conversely, your deletion nomination isn't centered around sourcing or the GNG. It's invalid. This is an open and shut case. Sergecross73 msg me 02:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, no one is reporting on an album simply because there hasn't been an album. These so-called reliable sources are simply stating what they've been told - told by the very artist that has not released the album.

We've had 6 years of waiting. Wikipedia isn't free advertising for the entertainment industry. It needs gone.Kellymoat (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And as I've said, whether or not it is released is not part of our notability requirements. It simply does not matter. (Feel free to point to a policy that says otherwise.) Unreleased albums are less likely to have their own articles, because they tend to not have third party reliable source coverage, but that is simply not the case here. Also, your argument is growing contradictory now. You can't accuse the subject to be both a "hoax" and "promotional" - that doesn't make any sense. How can something supposedly not exist, and have never existed, but also be used in a promotional manner? Why would you have concerns over promoting something that does not exist? Conceptually, you need to pick and argument, and stick with it. (Though my stance is that neither apply.) Using both doesn't make any sense, especially considering that the article's tone isn't overtly promotional, and is largely written according to unconnected third party sources. Sergecross73 msg me 12:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also of note, a record label exec has confirmed it for a 2017 release. And it's not a hoax, with a copy being illegally bought by someone, and leaking a track online. So virtually all aspects of this nomination are false.Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To be clear, the sourcing found in doing just a very basic search out is even better than what's present in the article. The album has received dedicated articles written by some of the highest profile reliable sources in the music industry (and all RS's per consensus at WP:MUSIC/SOURCES):

Billboard (Major music magazine/website, decade spanning, one of the biggest authorities in music.)
Billboard again
MTV, quite possibly the biggest television source in the music world
MTV again
B.E.T (a national television network)
B.E.T. again
Fuse, another television based source. Very lengthy article detailing the album's development
Pitchfork a long running general music website.
Vibe, a long running rap/rnb magazine/website
XXL, long running print magazine and website

And that's just the peak of the iceberg. I could double the list if there was any doubt. This album has received more RS cover than many albums that are released. Two or three of these would be enough to scrape by the minimum of the GNG. We're well past the minimum required to have an article here. Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not denying that a press agent sent out a couple scripts, which media outlets then reported on.

But at some point, "the album" needs to become an album instead of "an idea". By keeping the article, all we are doing is furthering the propaganda. Kellymoat (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even both to look at all the article you missed when you failed to follow through on WP:BEFORE? None of the sources I presented are press releases, interviews, or remotely promotional. Most address release issues, recording details, related lawsuits, disagreements with management, and all sorts of notable commentary in creating the album. And they're all third party sourcing from high level sources with WikiProject-level consensus for their use. Your response is a sloppy and thoughtless attempt to discount strong sourcing, an approach that, actually put into practice, would make it impossible to source virtually anything on Wikipedia. Luckily, nothing you've said above has anything to do with Wikipedia policy or guidelines - you've yet to cite anything at all. You're operating entirely on your own personal opinions on what articles should exist, and flimsy ones at that. Sergecross73 msg me 17:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by Sergecross73. Even though this album was not released (and it is doubtful that it will ever be released), it still has received enough attention and coverage from reliable, third-party sources to support its notability. I would recommend to the nominator that he or she please ground AfDs in Wikipedia policy and guidelines to avoid issues like this in the future. I have noticed this kind of nomination being a recurring factor in this user's past AfDs; if you want to be involved with the AfD process, then I would strongly encourage you to better familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines. And thank you for the discussion Sergecross73. Aoba47 (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient coverage to meet WP:NALBUM and, given the steady stream of reporting/speculation over the last five years at least (here are two examples from 2012 [1][2]), it's not unreasonable to think the project fits the "high-profile" standard given to albums like the Chinese Democracy example cited within the "Unreleased material" subsection of the guideline. Gongshow talk 05:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 11 April 2017 (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.