Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katy Hudson (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. Per nom's indef block as a sock and WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Katy Hudson (album)

 * – (View AfD (View log  •  AfD statistics)

This album did not chart and has not received enough adequate coverage from reliable, third-party sources to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The artist (now known as Katy Perry) is clearly notable, and Google News/Books searches show coverage of the initial release by sources like Billboard. As WP:OSE declare, "In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items"; such selective deletion undermines "the purpose of Wikipedia being a comprehensive reference." This would become the only entry in Perry's discography without an independent article, and as her debut album the gap would be conspicuous. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. One way or the other, this content should be kept. I favor keeping it in a separate article rather than merging it to Katy Perry, but either of those outcomes is a keep. More than that, I agree with Hullaballoo's point about WP:OSE—since Perry's other albums are notable, it makes more sense to have an article for this album also. —C.Fred (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited. Just because Katy Perry is "famous", it doesn't mean that anything she's ever touched passes WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Bravedog (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So you say that Perry has infinite albums? :) Again, that comment was in regard to the finite set with most entries notable. I agree that the article could use expanding; however, I think the remedy in this case is to fix and expand, not delete. —C.Fred (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Expand" with what? Where are the reliable sources to prove notability? Bravedog (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Billboard and Christianity Today, for starters. I just added text from a contemporaneous review. —C.Fred (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And a too-often-ignored point is that WP:NOTINHERITED says quite specifically that notability may be inherited under the music guidelines, as well as in other situations. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. Bravedog (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note this user and the nominator are the subject of an SPI, in which this AfD has already been submitted as evidence . Daniel Case (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He has been confirmed as a sockpuppet here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep as per Hullaballoo. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep it does meet WP:ALBUMS. ApprenticeFan  talk  contribs 02:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Another review is here at Allmusic. There is enough coverage overall to meet WP:NALBUMS, as we have a released album from a notable artist and coverage from WP:RS to ensure the article consists of more than "just a track listing".  Gongshow  Talk 19:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep it meet's WP:ALBUMS --SveroH (talk) 18:05, 11 December 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.