Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fergie second 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. Ignoring the finer points of whether WP:CRYSTAL applies to the existence of this article, it does mean that all valid content can be dealt with at Fergie (singer). JPD (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Fergie second studio album

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:CRYSTAL concerns. The only source is a blogspot entry. Kwsn  (Ni!)  17:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Yeah let's wait till it at least has a name. Rocket000 (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. No tracks, title, sources. Crystalline.  tomasz.  17:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The article now provides three citations, one of which is to Rolling Stone, and WP:CRYSTAL is being misapplied. It was not designed for forthcoming albums. I think the deletion proposal needs to be re-thought. Bondegezou 20:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge to Fergie (singer). Obviously she'll release another album someday. I think this can wait until there's more details.--CastAStone|(talk) 21:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Crystal-ballery. Re-create when reliable sources can be found or when album is actually released. Precious Roy (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. WP:CRYSTAL does not apply to an album on which work has already begun. Rolling Stone is clearly a reliable source, as, I would argue, is Undercover.com.au. So, there may be arguments for deleting this article, but I feel some of the arguments presented above are erroneous. Bondegezou (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I disagree: WP:CRYSTAL is absolutely apt for this purpose and "[x] artist's [y] studio album" articles are deleted all the time under it. CRYSTAL doesn't apply "if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" (emphasis mine), which history has shown is not the case with such albums.  tomasz.  10:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think the quotation you give from WP:CRYSTAL needs to be read in context. The main concerns addressed at WP:CRYSTAL are about verifiability and avoiding original research: this article has citations. Most of the things specifically discouraged by WP:CRYSTAL do not apply here. The one sentence there about "unreleased products (e.g., movies, games, etc.)" says that they "require special care to make sure that they are not advertising" -- again, I don't see that being a problem in this article. Moreover, there is an implicit recognition there that such articles can be appropriate. Some distinction is also made around cases where "preparation for the event is not already in progress", implying there is less of an isse when preparation is in progress. In this case, work has begun on the album. I feel that, if people have WP:CRYSTAL concerns, they should spell these out in more detail as to how they feel a particular article fails the policy. That WP:CRYSTAL is misused in other AfD debates is no reason to repeat the error. Bondegezou (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment You're overlooking "almost certain to take place", which Tomasz pointed out already. The way the record industry works, there is no guarantee that this record will come out. I agree it is likely to come out in some form or other, but there is nothing approaching certainty yet. She's still promoting her last album, with a new single coming out. I would be surprised if a follow-up album was released before the end of next year (and less surprised if it came out after 2008)—despite the producer's claims that it is half finished. Information gathered about her work on an upcoming album can be merged into Fergie (singer) until release is immanent imminent. Unless of course there is considerable non-trivial coverage Precious Roy (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment.' As I see it, this project already exists. That is, there has been a body of activity creating something. Even if the project was abandoned today, it would still warrant some sort of mention (probably in Fergie (singer)). So, that's why I think the "almost certain to take place" bit of WP:CRYSTAL is not relevant here. As a body of work, something has already taken place. Thus, looking at all of WP:CRYSTAL, WP:MUSIC and WP:N, it seems to me the most important criterion is verifiability. I accept your case elsewhere that there's only one reliable citation given. Unless more turn up, that's insufficient for a standalone article and the material should be merged with Fergie (singer). If more become available, it seems to me that an article is warranted (and allowed under WP:CRYSTAL). So, basically, I agree with your last bit above, if I might quote selectively: "Information [...] can be merged into Fergie (singer) [...] Unless [...] there is considerable non-trivial coverage". Bondegezou (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The crystal-ballery also includes the presumtion that the album will be notable. There are no hit singles and the album has had limited coverage in the media. So—ignoring the fact that it doesn't even exist yet—what's notable about the album? Precious Roy (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Fergie is clearly a notable artist and every album/single she's released as a solo artist and nearly every one she's released with Black Eyed Peas has its own article. So, once released, I presume this article will be notable, even if it doesn't chart. However, to be more methodical about this, I checked WP:MUSIC, which basically comes down to whether there is sufficient verifiable material to make up an independent article. This article currently has three citations, although the first one should probably go. I only said "weak keep" above and accept that's not many citations. Bondegezou (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment "I presume this article will be notable" Presuming something will be notable is nothing but crystal-ballery. If the record is released it will most likely be notable but that's when it's actually released. Regarding the citations, note that the 3rd should go also—the site just rehashes news from other sources in an attempt to get AdSense $$ (the Fergie article reports on the Rolling Stone article). Until there is considerable non-trivial coverage from reliable sources (or when the album is actually released) the info can be rolled into the Fergie article. Precious Roy (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Once the album has a name, we can have an article then.  RFerreira (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't see how having a name actually changes the article's status. What it needs is more coverage. Ten articles about it are worth more than one that announces a name. Bondegezou (talk) 12:16, 10 December 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.