Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Aguilera's third full-length English 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 of the debate was delete. NSLE ( T + C + CVU ) 04:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Christina Aguilera's third full-length English album

 * Keep These are confirmed producers with facts not rumors!

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When the album is released it should get an article, but not before. Zunaid 10:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Probably the pet project of some impatient fan --Mecanismo 10:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Movementarian 10:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. For our purposes here, there's no difference between it being already released and yet-to-come. People are always making that distinction, but it's wrong. We're talking about providing information here. Information exists regardless of whether the album is released yet or not, so we provide it. The "crystal ball" argument is completely wrong, because we should only be dealing in verifiable information&mdash;predictions other people have made, and information that has been officially confirmed. So the only question is notability. Well, I think this is a notable subject. Christina is very famous and popular and there's plenty of talk about her next album. Everyking 10:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I would agree with you, if the album had a title.  Movementarian 11:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I can see that point, but then theoretically the album could generate a huge buzz and yet not get an official title until a week or two before release; I think in this case we'd still want to provide the information. The issue of the title becomes irrelevant; the question is just the notability of the topic. I would think if an upcoming album is getting a lot of attention, we'd give it an article regardless of whether it's been officially given a title. Everyking 11:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Everyking, as User:Crotalus horridus said, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. You admit that the article is based on speculation and the only justification that you can give for the keeping of that article is "theoretically the album could generate a huge buzz". If the only justification that the only supporter of the article is one solelly based on possible speculation, then it is obvious that there is no reason to keep the article. The deletion is not only the right thing to do, it is the obvious option to be taken. --Mecanismo 12:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that it's based on speculation. See below. Everyking 16:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe that there is, in fact, a very strong difference. Wikipedia aims to be an encyclopedia. According to the definition, it's articles should bear important and relevant information on some subject. The article listed for deletion is purely speculation and rumors and I don't see how speculation and rumors can be considered important or relevant on any subject, let alone an encyclopedic article. Besides, I don't see how that article can ammount to something other than that: a source of rumors and speculation. When the album is released I don't see why it shouldn't be covered by a wikipedia article. Until then, I believe that it would be wise to leave the rumor-spreading and speculation-creation to webforums, blogs, IM chats and other related media of communication. --Mecanismo 11:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like everything in the article should be verifiable. Even things that can't be verified as fact can be verified as notable rumors. Everyking 11:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that it's the job of an encyclopedia to convey unaccountable information or even to spread rumors, being them "notable" or not. --Mecanismo 11:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is about verifiable facts not verifiable rumours. If people want advance information on an album in production they should look at other mediums, such as blogs.  An article entitled Christina Aguilera's third full-length English album does not belong in Wikipedia.  When a release date is announced and the album is titled an article could be created. Movementarian 11:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Until the album has a name it shouldn't be discussed in it's own article. The mistake people make is wanting to create new articles for everything and fragment information. I'd be happy with merging into Christina's article, though. Christina's quote at the start needs sourcing. - Mgm|(talk) 12:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge anything useful with the main Aguilera article, otherwise let's wait till the release at least has a title before doing an article about it. Crystal ball otherwise. 23skidoo 13:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete When/if the album is released, it might merit an article of it's own, and this article will be redundant. --StoatBringer 14:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, then we'd just move it to the new title. Everyking 19:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pure speculation... Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Crotalus horridus 16:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * None of it is speculation. Think for a minute. It is, in a sense, speculation to say that there will be a U.S. presidential election in 2008. Because who knows, really? But we have an article on it...why? Because it's a notable topic and information can be verifiable whether reporting past events or reporting what other people have said about future events, and past events relating to those future events. I really get tired of the "crystal ball" stuff. Everyking 05:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * We know that there will be a U.S. Presidential Election because it is madated in the constitution. But since you bring it up, notice that there is not an article entitled 2008 Presidential Election.  That is because we don't know anything beyond the fact that it will take place.  We can speculate that certain political figures will run, but not in Wikipedia as encyclopaedias are no the place for speculation.  Movementarian 00:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * We report other people's speculation. Like, duh! And my first point was a philosophical one&mdash;you don't really know any future events will take place. And here's another point&mdash;even if Christina doesn't release a third album, the topic itself is still notable&mdash;she's been recording, people have been talking about it, it's acquired a significant degree of fame, and a significant amount could already be written about it. So really it has nothing to do with the album being released or not. You need to base it on the subject's notability, that is to say, on the importance attached to it by people. Everyking 05:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think we will have to agree to disagree. You think that because someone that is notable says they will do something it should be immediately placed into Wikipedia (I hope that I am not misintrepeting your position, if I am I apologise).  I think we should wait until it has happened.  Movementarian 06:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, not necessarily. It depends on whether what is said amounts to notable information. (Also, I naturally regard saying something as an action, therefore that&mdash;the act of communicating&mdash;has already happened&mdash;it is in the past, and thus can't be speculation.) And to have an independent article you need a collection of notable info that would not fit properly into another article. It makes sense to me to have this as an independent article...I think any question about this should arise from whether to merge verifiable info, or keep it here as its own article (and we know it will eventually get one anyway, of course). I see no reason not to do the latter&mdash;I feel people are making arbitrary cut-off points, such as it having an official title, or being released. To me, what matters is that you have a collection of notable, verifiable info that works as an independent subject. Everyking 10:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I see where you are coming from and I better understand your position, however I disagree that requiring an album to have a title is an arbitrary cut-off point. I think having a proper title is a key element to having an article.  If a member of a royal family gets pregnant should we make an article called (using the House of Orange-Nassau as an example) Prince Willem-Alexander and Princess Maxima New Baby or should we wait until it has a name?  Movementarian 18:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete speculative fancruft. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 16:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete worth at most a one-liner in the Aquilera article. I fully agree that speculation/rumour/future plans have little relevance to an encyclopedia. CarbonCopy 16:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, purely speculative. Andrew Levine 18:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Guy. &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( TALK )  18:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with main article. Technostalgia
 * Merge until the album has a name and some relevance besides this. EliF 01:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Mergeper EliF.--Alhutch 05:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Everyking - David Gerard 13:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Most of the article contains uncited rumors or info in the Christina Aguilera article, and may be considered Original Research. We should get a solid reference and more info about the album before we create an article for it. We don't even have a name (tentive or not) which we can work with. If there's cited info, it should be in the future section of the main article --unless it contains so much info that it will warrant it's own article. --LBMixPro&lt;Sp e ak


 * 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.