Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oblivion (T-Pain 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) power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 21:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Oblivion (T-Pain album)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:TOOSOON at least. My redirect to artist reverted bt article creator... TheLongTone (talk) 14:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: It's going to debut on the Billboard 200 and has been covered by reputable sources from rap blogs to Billboard.BlaccCrab (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to T-Pain but keep the categories, which are useful search tools. "It's going to debut on the Billboard 200" is a laughable reason for inclusion in Wiki. If it charts and so passes WP:NALBUMS, try again. Narky Blert (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The only thing "laughable" is an editor naive enough to think that a project by someone who has coverage across the board from publications and sold millions of albums isn't notable. Go mess up a British artists album page. BlaccCrab (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure "laughable" is the right term. This looks to be a lazy job by virtually everyone involved. This is a major record label release by a platinum selling artist. Its completely ludicrous to think that it's not going to have the coverage to meet the bare minimum of the WP:GNG. Disappointing all around. Sergecross73   msg me  20:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "naive enough to think that a project by someone who has coverage across the board from publications and sold millions of albums isn't notable"
 * "Its completely ludicrous to think that it's not going to have the coverage to meet the bare minimum of the WP:GNG"
 * Those arguments are unsupported WP:CRYSTAL.
 * That said, User:Sergecross73 has turned up several good looking sources. So, changing my vote to keep.
 * "Go mess up a British artists album page." You mean like the one where I deliberately created a new album page by one of my favourite bands as a redirect to the band's page because I wasn't convinced that the album was notable? Narky Blert (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * To be clear, my comment you responded to was in regards to the lack of WP:BEFORE going on here, and the complete ease of finding the sources below pretty much confirms that suspicion. But regardless, we seem to largely be on the same page now. Thank you for reconsidering your !vote. Sergecross73   msg me  03:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - Tons of high level, reliable source coverage. Easily meets the WP:GNG.
 * 1) https://www.npr.org/sections/allsongs/2017/11/17/564870389/t-pain-emerges-from-emotional-oblivion-with-new-album
 * 2) http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/hip-hop/8030194/t-pain-new-album-oblivion-inspirations-interview
 * 3) https://www.spin.com/2017/10/t-pain-oblivion-release-date/
 * 4) https://www.vibe.com/2017/11/t-pain-oblivion-album/
 * 5) http://www.xxlmag.com/rap-music/new-music/2017/11/t-pain-new-oblivion-album/
 * 6) http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/hip-hop/8039306/t-pain-oblivion-new-album
 * It's not even a close call. Sergecross73   msg me  21:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: sources mentioned above by Sergecross73, first reviews in from HipHopDX and The Guardian ... this now passes WP:ALBUM even if it doesn't chart next week (which it will). Richard3120 (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2017 (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.