Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katy Perry's 2010 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   Incubate. It (a) clearly fails WP:CRYSTAL at the moment, but equally (b) will exist and be notable at some point. Article is Article Incubator/Teenage Dream. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Teenage Dream
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Classic application of WP:HAMMER. No title, no confirmed release date, no tracklist: just a rumor-infested gabfest from unreliable sources. &mdash;Kww(talk) 19:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Commenting: It's got a title now (and the closing admin should note that it is now at Teenage Dream), but that still isn't enough to justify an article. There's no meat to this thing, and everything that really belongs in an article can still fit nicely at Katy Perry. Paragraphs like "On April 27, 2010 Perry posted a message on twitter stating that she was shooting the cover for the album's first single and stating that "There couldn't be more color". She subsequently posted a photo from the shoot that showed only her pink and black polka-inspired finger nails.  On April 28, 2010 Perry stated that she filmed the music video for the first single. On April 30, 2010 Perry stated on twitter that it's the last day of recording the album and thanked Greg Wells, one of the producers. On May 5, 2010, Perry shot the album cover." are of no value in any article.''"&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's a new project so we don't have too many information. But the album has even produced a single and we got the first properties, so we will get more information soon. I don't find a reason for this album-article should be deleted because in a couple weeks we will have to create it again.--HC 5555 (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because the album almost certainly will be notable, it's not yet notable. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) &#124; (talk to me) &#124; (What I've done)  22:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - No tracklisting or release date means that this fails Wp:CRYSTAL. The lack of a name means it fails Wp:HAMMER as well. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) &#124; (talk to me) &#124; (What I've done)  22:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete; Wikipedia has a longstanding rule that we don't write articles about forthcoming albums until, at the very least, their exact title, exact track listing and exact release date have all been announced by the artist and/or their record label in reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources are reliable in every way, most of them speaks to the singer herself. How Twitter can not be a reliable source that sends messages to the singer herself in it, and talking about the new album? In that world the Wikipedia editors came to rely on themselves or cited in the pages of the same?!*Fr@nkl!nG* (talk) 01:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Twitter is (a) not independent, (b) not easily consulted six months from now when somebody needs to double check what the reference actually said, (c) not particularly secure from being hacked by a troublemaker, (d) not a publication with a reliable long-term history of fact checking, error correcting and general accuracy. To name just the four reasons that are sitting right on the top of my head as to why Twitter doesn't count as a reliable source for the purposes of an encyclopedia. For a Katy Perry fan forum, sure, but not in an encyclopedia that's trying to be a serious and reliable publication of record. Bearcat (talk) 03:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's not bad, it's not like it doesn't have several reliable sources. Candyo32 (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, it most certainly is lacking reliable sources (Twitter? Seriously?) And secondly, it is lacking any of the three requirements for a Wikipedia article about an album: confirmed title, confirmed release date, confirmed track listing. Bearcat (talk) 03:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If you see that you know nothing of editing on Wikipedia. Okay that title, date and tracklisting are not confirmed yet, but neither the album's tracklisting Bionic of Christina Aguilera has been confirmed yet ... There's already fall the first three requisites that you said. Please fix arguments to support their theses, or else keep quiet not to mention stupid.*Fr@nkl!nG* (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * While the track list for Bionic is yet to be known, there is a substantial amount of verifiable and properly referenced information about its background, recording, production, and style. It is an appropriate exception—this would not be, since what verifiable information is known about Perry's next album can be covered in her own article for now.  Cliff smith  talk  21:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been editing Wikipedia since 2003 and know far more about editing here than you do. And I'd suggest you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, too. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - after looking at the cites (there's a lot of duplication), a clear case of WP:HAMMER.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Incubate. Not enough verifiable information for an article yet. More details are likely to emerge as its release approaches, so put it somewhere out of article space where it can be worked on.--Michig (talk) 07:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect. Redirect the album to the person who recorded the album which is Katy Perry. Please do it that will be great. Mr.Slinks (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL: there is not yet enough verifiable information about this album for a separate article. It should be covered in the artist's article until more is known.  Cliff smith  talk  21:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

*Redirect or Delete not enough information for stand alone article, fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. ..:CK:.. ( talk 2 me ) 04:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to Keep as Title and release date have been reveled, seems to pass WP:HAMMER now. ..:CK:..  ( talk 2 me ) 01:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete or Incubate No title. As for the fact that it has produced a single, that's what the single article is for. As of now, the album just isn't set enough for an article. Perhaps the incubation is a good idea; there is a very high possiblity the album will be notable. But just in case...yeah. Adam 94 (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Now has a confirmed title and the article is longer than those for a lot of released albums. IMO, passes WP:GNG. However, please incubate this detailed article instead of deleting if the result is not keep. Also WP:HAMMER is an essay, not a requirement. Anemone  Projectors  00:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Its HAMMER TIME STAT- Verse 02:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Whoever submitted this to AFD is pretty nitpicky. This article will just need to be recreated in a month if it is deleted.  I think everyone can admit to that.  I know this is more out of the principle of the matter than anything else, but is this really a valuable use of everyone's time?  -DMurphy (talk) 03:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't care if it'll be reliable next month, I don't care if it'll be reliable tomorrow. As of now, there are no reliable sources and there is no reason to keep this article. Kansan (talk) 06:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Incubate/Delete/Merge. Right now it's WP:CRYSTAL, and future releases are rarely notable. I strongly suspect that once it's released it will become notable: if/when that happens it can be recreated (with decent references - Twitter? I mean, really! C'mon!) TFOWRThis flag once was red 13:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC) TFOWRThis flag once was red 14:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The album has a title and an official release date now and if it does get deleted it will be re-created some after. Why are we wasting our time with this. QuasyBoy (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Read WP:CRYSTAL. Kansan (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

*Keep we got the album's name and the release date now. It's a matter of time for the tracklist to come out.--HC 5555 (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Duplicate  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, m o ɳ o  03:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Incubate Album is not notable right now. Article can be improved, but outside article name space. When album becomes notable, then can be restored.--SveroH (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:HAMMER is a useful guideline, but it's not policy, and I think it doesn't apply here. The album has a name and release date, and at least a limited amount of verifiable information, if not yet a tracklist. I think it's sufficiently notable for our purposes; if not, I'd suggest merging into Katy Perry rather than deletion. Robofish (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into Katy Perry. A lot of this information will be trivial and outdated when concrete, reliable information comes in (I'm referring to the various songwriters and producers she's worked with, because if their songs don't make it on the album, then it becomes a sidenote at best); to be honest, some of this already seems trivial (she almost worked with some people?).  Also, I know that Twitter can be used as a primary source if absolutely necessary, but I'm wary on including pages that use it as a main source for the article....  I did find the actual MTV News Canada report, though. SKS (talk) 06:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * With about 20 contributors this shouldn't have been relisted. See WP:RELIST. In any case, merge as there isn't enough for a separate article. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My understanding of relisting is that it's permissible if there are either too few contributors, or the discussion lacks arguments based on policy. No comment on whether the latter is the case here; merely that the number of contributors isn't the sole reason for relisting. TFOWRpropaganda 10:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's true but whether the discussion lacks arguments based on policy should be decided by an admin in lieu of the admin being able to close the debate.--Mkativerata (talk) 11:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why you are hiding your conversation with small text. I nominated this, so I can't close the debate, but a relist was reasonable because of the title being announced. Many of the early !votes were at least in part based on the absence of title, and it's reasonable for an admin to make sure that the consensus has not changed.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Because they were replying to me, and I was whispering... Oh, and I agree with you re: the relist: the !voters that invoked WP:HAMMER should have the opportunity to revise their !votes. TFOWRpropaganda 20:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. WP:HAMMER really applies here. Claritas (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and add again when the tracklisting and the release date will be confirmed  ×º°”˜ `”°º× ηυηzια  ×º°”˜ `”°º×  13:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep release date and titled confirmed on her official website, so I will remove the tag, and if you would like to re-add it for anyreason feel free to do so. (Alexshunn (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC))
 * so I will remove the tag... Please don't. Don't remove the tag until this deletion discussion is closed. TFOWRpropaganda 22:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect for now. Can be created once concrete information comes and not crystal like thing that "Perry is expected to do this and that" --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 05:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep it obviously!!! Title and release are confirmed, it's a full fledged article!! 207.210.129.9 (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Article is fairly well-sourced, release date and title are confirmed.  I would like to see more track information listed, but I don't see any reason to kill this article at this time.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.204.193 (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect Typical premature article. Yeah, there are resources but no tracks, no cover; redirect for the time being. Ga   Be   19  00:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep (or redirect to California Gurls). Article will become more notable when more information is available. Article will require its own page soon if the result of this discussion is "Redirect/Merge". However, copying and pasting was wrong. --Kei_Jo (Talk to me baby! :þ) 17:32, 21 May 2010 (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.