Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Britney Spears' fifth 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 keep. Buck ets ofg 05:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Britney Spears' fifth studio album

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not enough confirmed information, only speculations, articles such as this should at least wait for a management confirmed album title with official resources listed Alankc 00:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Wait until release. Reads like a news piece to me.  Navou   banter  /  review me  00:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  P.B. Pilhet  /  Talk   01:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete crystalballism. JuJube 01:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete speculative and crystal balling the release of this album.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Find sources and post them.
 * Keep Article passes WP:CRYSTAL by being well-sourced (all appear to be reliable) about an album that has been in development for a while and will most likely be released. The tentative title is not its most important aspect. Pomte 01:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Pomte. This article is extremely well-referenced, and displays little unverified speculation. Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  01:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - remarkably well sourced for an album that hasn't even been titled yet. I think this satisfies WP:CRYSTAL. Natalie 02:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, speculative. Edeans 02:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect to Britney Spears - fansites and blogs are not reliable sources. Official releases from anagement and label are. possible track list is not sourced information, and the article can wait for an officially confirmed tracklist, release date, and album title. Until the official announcements, everything and anything can change. Alankc 04:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete other problems notwithstanding, doesn't (yet) meet WP:V. /Blaxthos 09:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not all of the information is verified, therefore making it unreliable.  Telly   addict Editor review! 16:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep sources put it past WP:CRYSTAL criteria. Quadzilla99 17:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Although one part of my brain says delete all of it, the side of my brain that reads WP:CRYSTAL says keep it. Sources are quoted and if they turn out to be wrong in the future, at least we can look back at history and see where it went wrong. Wikipedia, like the law, is a living document. It and its editors learn as time grinds on.  -- Silverhand Talk 19:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, I agree with Silverhand, it is documented (and not just in fansites), so verifiability doesn't seem to be a problem, and it appears to pass WP:CRYSTAL. I think this is exactly the sort of article WP:CRYSTAL means to preserve.-Dmz5 *Edits**Talk* 19:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Article has sources such as MTV, People, CBS to name a few. Provides verifiable content that would just have to be recreated in the not too distant future. ↔NMajdan &bull;talk 20:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect to Britney Spears - the only true confirmation of titles and tracklsits are from the record label and management, all else is speculation and heresay that can, and often does get changed before the official information release from management. 21:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alankc (talk • contribs) 2007-02-05 21:31:55
 * This is not a vote, Alankc. You were the nominator.  Adding bullet points repeating yourself won't change the outcome.  There is no ballot to be stuffed. Uncle G 22:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom MiracleMat 23:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. MTV, CBS, and People are all reliable sources. --Zeborah 04:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Too much of this discussion is about the album itself, rather than our article about the album. It doesn't matter if the album has no title yet; the information the article contains is verified, and it clearly passes WP:CRYSTAL.--Cúchullain t/ c 05:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, surpasses the crystal ball standard. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep assuming the "future" tag remains on it than this article is fine to stay on Wikipedia. DanielFolsom T|C|U 20:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is one of the most anticipated albums of the year. Definetly keep. Starsareblind07 15:20, 10 February 2007 (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.