Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kris Allen (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 (NAC) RMHED (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Kris Allen (album)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article should be deleted because it has no sources to back i any of the information, and when I searched for it I found to reliable sources. also, there is not enough information for the page. ---Shadow (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources added and whole track listing is now made available. 124.105.251.54 (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The track listing with the writers and producers for each song on the album has been released to the public. The album is going to be released in a few weeks anyway. There's no sense deleting it now and reconstructing it later. Also, Adam Lambert's debut album, For Your Entertainment has even less information available right now, and, yet, its page is not currently being considered for deletion. Paintedblack (talk) 02:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: That's because no one has nominated it yet, that doesn't mean it was allowed to stay on the site. ---Shadow (talk) 05:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Maybe you should go nominate that as well...for your entertainment.--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 18:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment:Try being civil and not a jerk. ---Shadow (talk) 05:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep There are multiple reliable sources that confirm the name of the album, the release date, the album cover, the tracklisting and even a review of some of the songs. More reviews of the album/songs would be nice, but are not necessary for this article to stay. Aspects (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: There weren't sources when I nominated. ---Shadow (talk) 05:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You really should look some before nominating something like this, I believe you are supposed to.--Milowent (talk) 05:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Keep: This nomination is quite ridiculous. Every winner's album has warranted its own page. And just because a page DOESN'T have the proper sources doesn't mean you should take this route. The more constructive thing a good editor would do would be to locate proper sources and contribute to the article to help its overall credibility.--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 18:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: No it wasn't. When I nominated the article had barely anything. And my search for sources brought nothing up other them "album except by year's end". Not to mention winning American Idol doesn't mean anything to the artist's album page. ---Shadow (talk) 05:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Keep: This guy won American Idol, there's no way this won't be charting and have even more coverage. As much as I detest the show, its notable.--Milowent (talk) 05:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep: There's sufficient information now and there is no reason for the album to be up for deletion.Adam 94 (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Strong Keep: American Idol winner, debut album with a single already released and album cover & street date available on amazon.com. Just because an article is bad doesn't mean nominate it for deletion. Tag issues with the appropriate tags and correct them if you have the information. Ejfetters (talk) 08:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- Ejfetters (talk) 08:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Article release date (17 Nov) and other details are already known, so WP:CRYSTAL isn't an issue, and its notability isn't really in doubt. No constructive purpose would be served by deleting an article which would be recreated almost immediately after the album's release if not before. The article is already in pretty good shape after recent improvements, and infant articles with obvious potential like this shouldn't be nominated for deletion. WP:BEFORE: "Stubs and imperfect articles are awaiting further development and so the potential of the topic should be considered." Contains Mild Peril (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per above six votes.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep it appears to be sourced and has enough info already. CloversMallRat (talk) 03:22, 1 November 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.