Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gucci Vs Guwop


 * 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   no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 20:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Gucci Vs Guwop

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NALBUMS for a standalone article. It is just one of the about ten "albums" that the artist has released in the last year. It did not chart at all, even on the genre charts and I cannot find any reviews for it either. It does not help that the article is the definition of a stub and the only ref is a link to buy the album. STATic message me!   15:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It his third album released this year not ten. It would be around 10 if you counted the mixtapes and collaborative releases but this is just albums. The reason he released so many ahead of schedule is because the first album of 2014 "Trap House 4" was one of his best charting releases since he returned to rap from acting, so he tried to do two follow-up albums to capitalize on his return to popularity. The reason there is only one source is because there wasn't any information released through news outlets, (you know, because he's in PRISON) and every time I try and source something with Twitter it gets deleted even though it's ran by one of his managers.

All in all, you can't just choose to delete a page just because you don't support his marketing scheme for releasing music, which happens to be rapid releases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkatastic (talk • contribs) 15:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Personally I think he's a terrible artist, but to delete this page for no reason other than thinking his releases are irrelevant is wrong. Give it time for someone to clean it up and include more links. BlaccCrab (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Neither of the users address the fact that the album does not meet WP:NALBUMS. I care nothing of his marketing scheme or do I think his releases are irrelevant. Do not try to put words in my mouth. If the album does not meet WP:NALBUMS, it is as simple as that. If there was no coverage, there was no coverage, and it should not have a Wikipedia article. STATic message me!   21:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There's some coverage, I guess it could pass GNG., , , , , , 2Flows (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   16:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * That is not significant independent coverage, it is routine trivial coverage. All the sources are nearly the same thing, just a few sentences and a posting of the album's stream. STATic message me!   20:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Per coverage above. Koala15 (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Fails WP:NALBUMS. --Bejnar (talk) 03:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

More information has been added, including links. I spent hours searching for content, and am in the process of adding even more, I'm not sure if this was settled before now but it most definitely is now. Meets the standards link to above, thankfully we can all move on now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkatastic (talk • contribs) 22:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not substantial coverage, i'm afraid. Youtube and interviews and mere mentions don't make it. --Bejnar (talk) 04:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 10:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:38, 8 October 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.