Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rihanna's sixth 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. By the numbers, there are more editors (and one IP) recommending that the article be kept in its present form, but several of the keep rationales are weaker - for example, the fact that other articles exist is not itself a reason that this article should exist as well. Similarly, the fact that this album has a release date is not a reason to keep - albums can have information in Reliable Sources and still not meet the criteria of WP:NALBUM. On the Delete side of the debate, I found fewer arguments by the numbers, but these arguments were the stronger. WP:CRYSTAL is relevant, as is WP:RS - especially given how many sources are actually reports of the artist's tweets. Several arguments boiled down to a reading of WP:HAMMER.

But the key here is that editors on both sides - Keep and Delete - expressed a willingness to have the article incubated. Whatever the state of the article at present, no one argued that the album is in danger of being cancelled, nor did anyone express doubt that it will, at some point, be released. Given the level of interest in this article, the finite (a few months at best) time frame during which it can be expected to become notable, and given the precedents for incubation cited below, I think it's not unreasonable to move this to the Incubator. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have incubated the article and moved it to Article Incubator/Rihanna's sixth album. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Rihanna's sixth album

 * – ( View AfD View log )

fails WP:CRYSTAL Nicholas (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep What is WP:CRYSTAL about it?? It has a release date, everything is sourced, and info is coming up everyday. Lady Gaga's Born This Way was created literally months and months before it was even released or any singles released. I have a problem with the article being deleted, if you want to re-direct it, then that can be discussed, but I don't see why it should be deleted, it will only have to be re-created again. I just don't see the point in it being deleted, as with many articles. Calvin  &bull; Na Na Na C'mon!  20:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is WP:CRYSTAL because it has not been named yet. Nicholas (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Coldplay's fifth album wasn't named, but it had an article for months. Just because an album doesn't have a name, doesn't mean there isn't enough info to support it, because there is. Calvin  &bull; Na Na Na C'mon!  20:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Until it has a real name or until it becomes as relevant as the Coldplay's fifth album. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  20:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I created the article today. I doubt Coldplay's fifth album was exactly full of info hours after being created. It's only two months until Rihanna's album si released, it's not long at all. Calvin  &bull; Na Na Na C'mon!  20:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if you create it today, knowing that there are guidelines to not create articles, you decided to create it. Calvin this is not Fanapedia. The content here can be merged into a Rihanna's relevant section, and the article deleted because it is almost a "TBA (Rihanna album)" title. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  20:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It has a release date. If you want to talk about "Fanpedia", then you should look at Gaga articles. It's double standards. I don't think a delete is necessary, it's only going to have to be re-created in a matter of weeks. and IP users will create the page over and over with no content, at least my creation has relevant background info and properly formatted references. A re-direct is fine. Calvin  &bull; Na Na Na C'mon!  20:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If "IP editors ... start to create it ... again" it can be semi-protected and salted. You have given no reason for keep the title again, and again, it can be merged into Rihanna bio with no problem. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  20:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and Gaga articles are irrelevant here. They, at least, are more encyclopedic than "The [Loud era] continues with more new music to add to [yo]ur collection'" Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  20:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I can tell you don't like Rihanna, which is probably the reason why you want this article deleted. If it was Gaga's, you would probably fight to keep it. Calvin  &bull; Na Na Na C'mon!  20:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Creating BLP violations with my persona? Inform yourself before you talk. I don't like Rihanna but neither Gaga. I am in favour of the polices and guidelines, if you cannot with them this is not your place. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  21:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The album has a release date. The name doesn't even matter. Kelly Rowland's album hadn't name for maybe one or two years. So? There is a background info also. And btw I support Calvin's comment about the freak called Gaga. Her article would be kept even if it was fictive !!! — Tomica1111  &bull;  Question Existing?  20:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well Tomica, Born This Way was created from an incubator page not with a) a better background, 14 reliable sources and yes a name. Kelly Rowland's one talks by itself, and yes it was incubated. Even Coldplay's was notable at the beginning. If you want to play the Wikilawyer find a better client. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  21:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete – Not sufficient information, no name and should be merged to Loud (Rihanna album) and Rihanna. Yes, other stuff does exist but that is a weak argument to use in deletion discussions. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  21:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Incubate Nothing else to add. — Status  &#x7B;talkcontribs  21:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree with Calvin. The album already has a release date, the first single has already come out and has already hit number 11 on iTunes in the US and the album's release is only Two MONTHS away. When Rihanna first told her fans via Twitter that the debut single from the album would be We Found Love, she said it would premiere in October and quickly changed that to the 22nd September - three weeks earlier than initially planned. How do we know she isn't going to announce the name of the album in the next radio or TV interview promoting We Found Love??? She is soo unpredictable and like Calvin said, new information is coming out daily. This article DEFINITELY needs to be kept. I think it would be foolish to even merge the page (as someone has already unfortuneately done with (WFL). Muthamonster (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In resume: " Fans People needs a new Wikipedia page to know that her album may be released in November". If "[Rihanna] is soo [sic] unpredictable", how do we know that the album will be released? You know, artists delay their works. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  00:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Artists like No Doubt??? Never even heard of them. Rihanna is a global artist, up there with the likes of Beyonce, GaGa and Katy Perry. She didn't delay Rated R due to little interest in its preceding singles, so what makes you think that a multi platinum artist would delay such an eagerly anticipated sixth studio album just because you're not a fan?? Muthamonster (talk) 04:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you haven't heard of No Doubt is not my problem. By your writing I guess you are not 18, and you was the one who called Rihanna an "unpredictable", not me. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  05:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * W T  F  are you on about?? What has my age and Rihanna's unpredictability got to do with shutting down this page? In 2011 the ability for a pop artist to schedule an album release firmly, without regard to how a single may perform, is a luxury that only the highest-billed artists are able to achieve without sacrificing competitiveness. This is a quote form an article I read this morning. You may or may not find it interesting. . You may also like to know that MTV have comfirmed the release date for her album on November 21. This is hardly a fanpedia as you and others call it, but merely naive wikipedians justling for position as the greatest enforcer of policies that obviously do not apply to the likes of Lady GaGa, Coldplay and Kelly Rowland - just to name a few. You are now making it blatantly obvious that with no further arguments you are forced to attack me personally instead of providing sufficient reason for wanting to shut down this page other than that you are not a fan of Rihanna. Muthamonster (talk) 10:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Gaga's Born This Way, Kelly Rowland's "Here I Am" and Coldplay's album weren't subjected to the same nonsensical strictness. Seriously, Kelly Rowland's album had no title and no release date and it just languished on Wikipedia for YEARS. It's quite gross that haters of Rihanna might be able to get away with such thinly-veiled prejudicial behaviour on Wikipedia. If this article is deleted it will truly be a travesty. A true "Fanapedia" is evidenced in the very Coldplay album cited as the ideal standard. What's good for the goose isn't good for the gander anymore? Really? How dreadful. Keep this article, seriously. Even merging the page, as was nonsensically done with We Found Love, would be a mistake.-- miko mango  mwa!  03:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * According to you, if I want to follow the P&G and I vote "delete" I automatically become a Rihanna hater, my God, I bought 10 of her songs, but I'm not going to give reasons for people like all of you that start creating pieces of crap as soon as the artist gives a name. Calvin was arguing that "Lady FansGagas" create articles, so "why Rihanna's one not?". You are not helping no one. If you dont like the polices and guidelines, then change them, if you don't want, then do not start to cry everytime someone is acting in pro of Wikipedia, and remember this AFD when people start to create upcoming TBA albums with less notability than this one. If you want to keep an article that as now says this just remeber that Wikipedia is not a collector of information, but as I read above, this is really difficult to remember. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  05:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's the thing --- your comments and your actions don't align. You SAY you follow P&G but you can justify keeping Coldplay's album, and I sure as hell didn't see you on ANY discussion page for deleting Kelendria Rowland's latest album, which, like I said, languished on Wikipedia for years and years with not only DIFFERENT release dates every two minutes, it didn't have a title until the very last minute NOR was the track listing confirmed. Where were you then? You were not there. I have a hard time believing you've purchased 10 Rihanna tracks. What's good for the goose has to be good for the gander. Rihanna's album has a release date, a confirmed track and numerous producers discussing their involvement with the project. If Kelly Rowland's untitled album hanging out on Wikipedia for 3 years adhered to guidelines and Coldplay's (no tracklisting until last week!) then so does Rihanna's sixth album. I'm merely accusing you of being a hater because you clearly have a double standard with regards to your policy practices.-- miko mango  mwa!  12:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NALBUMS, CRYSTAL. Kelly Rowland's album was nominated for deletion: WP:Articles for deletion/Untitled Kelly Rowland album. It was developed in an incubator later. Born This Way was also incubated first and then moved. Anyway, WP:OCE is not an argument, sorry. Novice7 (talk) 06:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Per the nominator and WP:NALBUMS. There's no info, no tracklist, no confirmed release date or name. This is Wikipedia, not Rihanna.wikia.com. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 06:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh and by the way, people accusing others of being a "hater" for supporting delete, just bloody stop being a dick and grow up. As Tbhotch said, if you cannot abide by policies and guidelines while creating articles and pages, then please stop editing here. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 06:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't talk like that to me. I won't tolerate it. Calvin  &bull; Na Na Na C'mon!  10:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Legolas why do you have to go poking your nose into everything. MTV has already confirmed the release date of November 21. Why can't you just stick to editing Lady GaGa, Madonna and yourself. Muthamonster (talk) 10:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Btw, Billboard has also confirmed the release date. You can't tell that they aren't reliable sources because you're the one who once told me that I couldn't make a certain page because of unreliable sources (Born This Way Ball anyone??). When asked you told me both of these sources were reliable so do us all a favour and stop contradicting yourself. Muthamonster (talk) 10:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Calvin, stop accusing others of hating Rihanna and start quoting and editing within policy, maybe then you will understand not to be a dick. And Muthamonster, another personal attack and WP:ANI is where you will find yourselves. Do I have to do a checkuser on you? — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 11:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So, Incubate would be a better option since Kelly Rowland and Gaga were given the same treatment. I'd rather see the article incubated than flat-out deleted. (Additionally, Legolas, given that most of your posts are dripping with snark, you threatening to ban someone from Wikipedia for snark doesn't seem that cool. Yikes...talk about power tripping.) Anyway..."Delete until it has a real name" doesn't fly (See Kelly Rowland) and "Delete because the release date may be changed" doesn't fly (See Kelly Rowland). Incubate would be a better option. I've said it before and I'll say it again -- what's good for the goose has to be good for the gander. Seriously. You can't pick and choose how you legislate based on artists that you like or dislike.-- miko mango  mwa!  14:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Incubate. Maybe the album isn't notable now but it will be in near future.My love is love (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NALBUMS. The album won't be released for another two months, and the background section consists almost solely of tweets. Pancake (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - if reliable sources can back up claims, then I don't see why deleting it would be beneficial. I agree with the above comment about the "tweets" sources. Jona yo! Selena 4 ever  19:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Incubate This album is being released within 2 months and will probably be notable by next month. Elektrik  Band  04:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, we don't even have a title or a tracklisting. It's way too early for this album to have its own article.  ×º°”˜ `”°º× ηυηzια  ×º°”˜ `”°º×  10:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Already enough significant coverage to pass the WP:GNG, and more is sure to come as the album is coming out in less than two months. Furthermore this does not fail WP:CRYSTAL as the nominator claims. "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." Passes on both counts. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. As far as i know Rihanna, she will not be able to tolerate the rats already messing up in her tummy to the point that she will just spill a whole lot of information on this album in the coming days (somehow like when Gaga has an album coming out). With the new single sure to debut this week, it is highly probable that more news about the album will surface. So it is useless to delete this. At worst, this should be incubated but not deleted. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 19:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. It has a release date, and it'll be out in two months. It's typical for movies, for example, to have pages created 6 months+ before they are released. The lead single is going to chart pretty high soon, and per Jivesh it will likely spur more details about the album. KnowitallWiki (talk) 00:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Has a release date and single. Thankyoubaby (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Release date? Check. Single? Check. Confirmed by Rihanna herself. Also, it's common for movies to have pages created 6+ months before they are released. 98.206.162.95 (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I would say keep, since there are many articles such as B in the Mix: The Remixes Vol. 2 and Mylo Xyloto that were created before the official release. However, it doesn't have a name yet, doesn't have an official cover nor a track listing. It fails WP:CRYSTAL. - Saulo  Talk to Me 15:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This album is coming out in two months, it has been confirmed, and the first single is already top ten on the Hot 100. It clearly is stupid to delete and then have it added within a few days as more information becomes available everyday, and I don't even like Rihanna. JFlash54 (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

By the time consensus is reached, the album would have been released! Lol. Currently 10 Keeps, 7 Deletes and 3 Incubates. Calvin  &bull; Na Na Na C'mon! 16:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Remember, an article can be deleted or merged with more keeps than deletes. What counts are not the votes, but the arguments. - Saulo  Talk to Me 16:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ^^^This is ridiculous. There are arguments to accompany every single Keep vote. What is your point with respect to this article?-- miko mango  mwa!  20:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You're being ridiculous. There are also arguments for every delete and incubate vote. The Time of Our Lives had more keeps than deletes and it was deleted anyway, because the arguments need to be valid and based on wikipedia's rules, not personal opinion. - Saulo  Talk to Me 17:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep; WP:NALBUMS says "[i]n general, if the musician or ensemble is notable, and if the album in question has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources, then their officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is in general not notable; however, it may be notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources". The multiple reliable sources and amount of information included demonstrates the article's worth. 81.106.127.99 (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete; WP:NALBUMS says "[i]n general, if the musician or ensemble is notable, and if the album in question has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources, then their officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is in general not notable; however, it may be notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources" The background section consists almost solely of tweets, so it is not notable enough YET. Either incubate or delete. 187.48.167.151 (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep; as per WP:NALBUMS and User:Calvin999's comments. Reliable sources included in the article (MTV News, Billboard, etc.). If anything, it can go threw the WP:INCUBATOR. --   Luke      (Talk)   23:26, 2 October 2011 (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.