Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anomaly (Lecrae 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   keep. In some respects, WP:HEY may apply, as the promotional tone, etc. was removed. There was no consensus regarding notability, and in the future, I would encourage those editors interested in the topic to have a discussion as to notability, but this AfD has no indication thereof, or contraindication thereof, and as such, as there are no other factors to support its deletion, the default is to keep. Editors are encouraged to discuss items of this nature in a collegial manner at an appropriate juncture. Thanks to all who participated. God bless.  Go  Phightins  !  15:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Anomaly (Lecrae album)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of encyclopedic notability. Subject fails NALBUM. Sources are promotional and or trivial. TOOSOON also would appear to apply. Article has a promotional tone to it. The only contributing editors are two SPAs and an IP. A Google did not yield enough to ring the notability bell. PROD was removed. Ad Orientem (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Should have simply redirected to artist article rather than go through an AfD. But looking at the edit history, maybe locked to new editors would have also been required. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Other sources have been added since the nomination. If it's still not enough then redirect but do not delete. --Sofffie7 (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to where? If they're not enough, and most are simply brief entries, then possibly userify to ??? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * After a look at the new sources I am sorry to say I still don't think they meet GNG and NALBUM. Most provide coverage that is run of the mill, often doing little more than confirming that the album is in fact coming. Others are from non-RS sources (YouTube - Facebook), and still others are promotional. There is just not enough here. I would be OK with a redirect to Lecrae without any prejudice against recreation if and when the album gains the attention necessary to ring the notability bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @Walter Görlitz: To Lecrae of course; ;) In September there won't be any problem as there will be reviews etc so it's only a matter of time. --Sofffie7 (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  03:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Keep Procedural keep for starters, as the article's tone and which users have edited it have no bearing whatsoever on notability. In any case, the sources are sufficient to eke by, especially given the nearness of the album's release, at which time, as Sofffie7 notes, there won't be an issue. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no such thing as a "procedural keep". Ever. It's not about tone or anything other than whether the subject is currently notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You keep telling yourself that, then. I prefer the world of reality. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Agreeing with the above, once the album's released there will be no shortage of citable sources, especially if the first single ("Nuthin'") is any indication. Deleting it now will just mean more work for someone else to rebuild it in September. What's on the page now is useful information; I really question what we stand to gain by deleting it. But then again, I also question whether this discussion would be happening if the album was by a mainstream rapper like Jay-Z or Kanye. The system didn't plan for this. Alphateam7911 (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica

1000 03:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC) 
 * Keep The album cover, track list, and release date are all released, and there is significant, non-trivial coverage of this album in multiple, reliable third-party sources. The article does need to get cleaned up for sure, though.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 21:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.