Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lupe Fiasco's Food & Liquor II: The Great American Rap Album (3rd nomination)


 * 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   redirect to Lupe Fiasco. ‑Scottywong | gossip _ 04:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Lupe Fiasco's Food & Liquor II: The Great American Rap Album
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Article has no sources, two blank sections, and is constantly vandalized. There is no indication to the relevance of the topic and no sourcing to back up what little information exists. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, completely lacking in everything. No sources, no content even. How this survived that first AFD (which was relisted twice and still had zero participants) is beyond me. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Merely promotion. Not even any basic information. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 13:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, the album's been announced and confirmed by the artist on his Twitter a few times already and a street single for it already exists that can be backed up from multiple separate sources. The album is CLEARLY coming very soon and citations are given so there really is no reason to delete the page just because we don't have a hefty amount of information for it yet. We have a street single, some information about recording sessions, producers, people inside the creative process, etc. Keep the article. &mdash; Cinemaniac ( talk  •   contribs ) 18:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Lupe Fiasco, without prejudice to recreation when the album is released. Until then, it's a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, even though it's clearly going to be notable. Twitter is not a reliable source. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Jorgath. For now this is WP:CRYSTAL violation, which is particularly noticeable since the last AfD was a year ago already. If the article is getting recreated prematurely and vandalized (I note that the last AfD resulted in a consensus to redirect) protection of the redirect until July may be in order. Rlendog (talk) 20:22, 23 April 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.