Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shock Value III


 * 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 Timbaland. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Shock Value III

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

After cleaning up the gunk and fancruft there isn't actually enough information to make this page notable. Apart from a released single which was nearly a year ago and a second un-notable single there isn't any sufficent information which warrants a page. There isn't even confirmation of a release date. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  00:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Incubate This is sort of like WP:CRYSTALBALL. It would be best if we wait for more information. The article looks like its gonna be released soon judging by the number of singles it has spawned so far. We shouldn't delete all this information here yet. Bleubeatle (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * comment two singles in the space of a year is no indication that the album will "soon be released". IMO there's not enough information to warrant incubation. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  17:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * reply to comment I guess you're right. But I still don't think that all of this information should be deleted. It seems like its got enough to expand once it has been released so I'd vote Redirect instead.Bleubeatle (talk) 10:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Timbaland. The "2010–present" section of his main article is better written/sourced than this page, and I don't believe this yet qualifies under the "few special cases" for unreleased material described in WP:NALBUMS. That said, I'm not opposed to WP:INCUBATION.  Gongshow  Talk 08:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * reply to comment yeah I guess so. I just don't think that it should be deleted yet.Bleubeatle (talk) 10:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect as above. Lacks coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:18, 30 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.