Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kesha's 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 03:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Kesha's second studio album

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Album has no title, no release date and no track listing. This article shouldn't exist in mainspace, at best not until there are definite facts available in authoritative sources and it has been widely reviewed. Probably it should be incubated until that time. There is already a meaty paragraph in the Kesha article about the speculation. Sionk (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I have to disagree because there are songs recorded for the album, and it is due to be ready anytime soon, we have 6 tracks so it's not a complete waste and there is a lot of information on the page about production, influence, sound, composition, etc so I don't think the page should be deleted at all. WillWalker23 (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The article has enough information to warrant its own article. It's as simple as that. Statυs ( talk ) 10:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - it might not pass WP:HAMMER, but does pass WP:GNG with all the sources. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Warrants enough info for its own article, it's actually bigger than most album articles that have already been released.--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - This album has been in the works for nearly half of a year, and enough information has been given to make a cohesive article. --User:Pokepokey (User talk:Pokepokey) 21:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - The article has more than enough info and sources to be an article. It would be pointless to delete the article and then have to re-write the entire article once the album is released. Nicholas (talk) 08:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Can somebody close this down now? WillWalker23 (talk) 12:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC) * NOTE: this editor has 'voted' twice *


 * Comment - another rash of 'Keep' votes based on the fact the article is big and there are lots of sources listed, neither of which is a Wikipedia rationale for keeping an article. As Bearian says, it clearly doesn't pass WP:HAMMER, it has no name announced, no idea of a release date and no definite track list. Basically its an article about 'things Kesha has been doing since 2011', so at best it should be incubated until we know something definite. Looking at the current sources, they are almost all Kesha making brief statements about what she wants her next album to include. She's basically throwing a few juicy bones to keep the press interested. There is not much at all said by anyone else, for the obvious reason there is nothing definite to review or talk about. Sionk (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep/Incubate has quite a lot of information and reliable sources. It might be released later this year so it doesn't need to be deleted. Bleubeatle (talk) 02:29, 12 August 2012 (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.