Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greatest Hits (Jennifer Lopez 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   SOMEWHAT ROUGE DELETION OF COPYVIO. It's not really blatant copyvio, but chunks of copyvio wrapped up in ad copy and horseshit ("If you love Jennifer Lopez and heavenly-smelling scents, no doubt you’ve already amassed a collection of crystal bottles bearing J.Lo-endorsed fragrances," seriously?) don't make for much of an article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Greatest Hits (Jennifer Lopez album)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Another crystal album, without title or release date. I try not to hold the fact that it is terribly written against it, but this is so bad, it's hard not to. &mdash;Kww(talk) 14:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) | (talk to me) | (What I've done)  16:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, you might have a look at WP:ATA, especially WP:JUSTA is most interesting. Don't you think so? -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord 2  22:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as it will pop up very soon again anyway. Why then double the work? Cut it down to the facts, look for additional sources and don't throw the redlink editors who'd been working on the article out of the boat. -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord 2  16:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - It doesn't exist. There is no telling what will be on it when (if) it does exist. The content that makes up this "article" is pure speculation, it walks all over every Wikipedia rule and convention. It's that simple. Delete it, and when (if) it does come to pass, then write the article. It makes so sense at all to fill Wikipedia with non-sense articles about things that simply do not exist. Proxy User (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong, a release date is stated and sourced in the article as April, 29. Additional sources can be found easily: -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa  Chord 2  16:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's sourced to IMDB, which is not a reliable source. AceShowbiz.com is a blacklisted site, so it cannot be used as a source for information, and the other sources use sentences like The song is speculated as one of the materials on her upcoming third compilation album Greatest Hits. Speculation is not usable as a source.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, wrong. See: Greatest Hits (Jennifer Lopez album). -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord 2  16:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.jenniferlopez.com/news/hookied-on-you contains no release date or album title.
 * http://www.rap-up.com/2009/02/23/new-music-jennifer-lopez-hooked-on-you/ says may appear on her greatest hits album, scheduled for a spring release.
 * http://www.cdjapan.co.jp/detailview.html?KEY=EICP-1103 provides no title or tracklist, and labels the information about release date as "subject to change without prior notice"
 * Please don't describe things as providing information that they do not as a defense for keeping articles. None of the sources used in this article are sufficient. They all use language that describe the information they are providing as unconfirmed or speculative, and don't provide key information necessary to building an article.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * News about this album go back to November 2007 and a release date for between February and April 2009 was announced last November (see official website). I'm not a fan of her (quite the contrary), so you may delete it. I don't really care. But the article will come back very soon. -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord 2  17:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, of course: Articles for deletion/Still from the Block. -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord 2  19:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, this looks to have been created independently, so I don't think it's eligible for speedy deletion as a repost.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, we could delete it for a third time. And a fourth and fifth time sure to follow. It would be somewhat more intelligent to a) just leave it be since the release is just delayed from Feb 9 to Apr 29 - Sony BMG had it already listed for the Feb date, that's where the Still from the Block title comes from, including a press release - or b) make a reasonable section in the Jennifer Lopez main article and redirect from both, Still from the Block and Greatest Hits (Jennifer Lopez album) to that very section until the album has been released. I guess it's way easier to nominate and delete it again, than to put a bit of work into it, but laziness should not rule Wikipedia. -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord 2  20:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Putting the effort into identifying articles that fail inclusion standards, nominating them for deletion, and taking the time to double-check and refute arguments for inclusion is not a sign of laziness. It isn't a matter of doing so rather than "put a bit of work into it": the information necessary to build an article about this album does not exist.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think so, gor for b) - until Apr 29. -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord 2  20:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All properly sourced and verifiable information that is available is at Jennifer_Lopez.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You know that this is not true, and neither exist any redirects. -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord 2  21:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't claim the redirects exist. We know she is planning on releasing a greatest hits album. We don't know the tracks. We don't know the title. We don't know the release date. We don't know if the leaked tracks have anything at all to do with a greatest hits album (and, in fact, logic would suggest that a leaked track would not be on a greatest hits album). "Lopez will release a greatest hits album in April or May 2009" is the sole verifiable statement, and even it is a bit hard to support. Lopez has indicated that she plans to ... would be better than Lopez will ....&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A comprehensive look on all facts and rumours incl. lots of sources can be found here: - that's where this recent article is copied from. I guess a nice paragraph could be built out of it, if not a whole article. -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa  Chord 2  21:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ps: Another overview is the starting post here: -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa  Chord 2  21:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that if you restricted your searches and investigation to reliable sources, you wouldn't exhibit such apparent confusion as to what material is suitable for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. The content of blogs and fansites is completely irrelevant to the discussion. When you find material based on reliable sources that can actually be included in the article, please come back to discuss it.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that if you would look at the two links above and at the cited sources there, you would understand what I'm talking about. Of course it's fansites, but they give you a sourced overview on the topic. Again, laziness is no excuse. -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord 2  22:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * First: quit calling me lazy. It's offensive and uncalled for. Second, I looked at your sources. They are fansites and blogs. They do not provide links or references to reliable sources, they provide references to announcements, statements, and confirmations without providing links to reliable sources that substantiate those announcements, statements, and confirmations. If you think there is material in reliable sources that should be included, please provide a pointer to that reliable source. Until then, please stop offering unreliable material in support of your argument.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Record company, stating Apr 29: Interview with producer:  Lopez herself:  not to talk about the press release from December, including a tracklist and announcing it for February - that's even in full in the nominated article (smell the copyvio?). That and some more bits make much more than that small sentence at Jennifer Lopez. Don't you think so? -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa  Chord 2  23:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * タイトル未定（ベスト盤）初回生産限定盤 means an untitled limited release: still no tracklist.
 * The interview you quote says C: The Greatest Hits album is going to have about 3 to 4 new tracks on it. ...[but]... To our knowledge, yeah. But you know, the label doesn’t really keep us posted indicating that the speaker is aware that he hasn't got reliable information.
 * If you consider Singersroom to be a source, it provides some vague information about possible new tracks, and the nugget I agree with:Jennifer Lopez’s “Greatest Hits” is slated to hit stores sometime this Spring.
 * The contents of http://www.sonymusic.co.jp/eng/ cannot be verified, as the page is dead.
 * The Latina article is about an album with an indeterminate number of new songs where she isn't even certain what year it will be released in.
 * As I said, please come back when you have some reliable sources for any information more detailed than "Lopez will release a greatest hits album in April or May 2009".&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree to disagree.-- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord 2  00:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I smell copyvio big time. MuZemike 21:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, it even gives its sources. -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord 2  21:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with DitzyNizzy per WP:CRYSTAL <span style="padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;"> §hawn poo   21:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point you to an intersting read, WP:ATA, which inludes interesting topics such as WP:PERNOM and WP:JUSTA. What do you think? -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord <sup style="color:#FFFF00;">2  22:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: Given a Japanese release date, and it's sourced. Thankyoubaby (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC & WP:CRYSTAL. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. The only thing that is semi-referenced is a possible Japan release date, not exactly "significant coverage". Oh, and  hexa Chord , WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is only an essay, not a policy or guideline. You may want to have a read of the little box at the top of that page before you go around pushing your opinion onto everyone else's reasons for deletion. IMHO of course.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 00:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I know it's only an essay (a good one btw.), otherwise I would've addressed this to other boards. -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord <sup style="color:#FFFF00;">2  00:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL.--Sloane (talk) 02:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Another two cases of WP:VAGUEWAVE... -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord <sup style="color:#FFFF00;">2  04:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Another case of a lone editor badgering everyone who disagrees with him in AFD... Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's more than you wrote about the article - what a shame. -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord <sup style="color:#FFFF00;">2  05:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL! Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. also, it looks like there might be copyright violations in the replication of text. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: multiple copyright violations from and . There's a difference between citing claims and copying word-for-word articles. These were well published before the wikipedia article creation. JamesBurns (talk) 08:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL.  Lugnuts  (talk) 09:01, 8 March 2009 (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.