Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singles Collection (Britney Spears 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. Barring a few questionable comments, the article satisfies WP:N. Opener's concerns involving Crystal are also resolved. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D  01:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Singles Collection (Britney Spears album)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete. Album was confirmed (via Twitter and her official website) earlier this evening, but no tracklist has been confirmed. Therefore, this fails WP:RS, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NALBUMS and WP:HAMMERTIME Dale 21:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Keep. Before we barely had an reliable info. Now we have good sources directly from Spears' site. It may not have a tracklisting, but a lot of albums on the site that don't have tracklists exist and have existed. ---Shadow (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nominator as it fails WP:NALBUMS. Existing is one thing—being notable is an entirely different one. talking  birds  22:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Dale 06:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep. It was confirmed by Britney's official site. how could there possibly be more evidence. i say keep it until the release may be canceled. until then, i wouldnt delete anything seeing as it is all true and not rumours--Apeaboutsims (talk) 00:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ITEXISTS. Dale 06:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep, It was already confirmed by Britney Spears web sites, so it is no longer just a rumored album. It must be keep. Besides, there have been a lot of articles about upcoming albums that doesn't have tracklist, and even worst, there have been a lot of upcoming albums with no title. it doesnt fail at all with: WP:RS cuz her websites are reliable, WP:CRYSTAL we are not talking about rumors, its official, so we are not "watching the future", and WP:HAMMERTIME because the info shown here is not from forums or message boards, it comes from reliable sources. It must be keept.Fortunato luigi (talk) 05:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Also, we need third party, reliable sources to establish notability. Therefore, the article needs to be deleted. Dale 06:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep, confirmed by Spears' official website and other reliable sources online. Release isn't too far away. No reason to delete. Jayy008 (talk) 12:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep, its been confirmed by britney's own official site, its been widely reported on other sites now including MTV. it is confirmed and official. Even retailers are listing it now as well. The release isn't that far away. I see no good reason to delete this article. Gartheknight (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep: Now that it's confirmed all... More information had become available. -- Platinum  Fire  18:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep: it's been confirmed.--Aaa16 (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep per above reasoning. CloversMallRat (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:ITEXISTS: "Existence is important". Colonel Warden (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep regardless if we have a track listing or not, the album is notable, its been showing up in all kinds of reliable sources: .--Crossmr (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. It exists. Note I was canvassed here from ANI. Mike R (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Why do you hate Britney Spears? (WP:HAMMERTIME footnote 2) Miami33139 (talk) 02:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Leave Singles Collection (Britney Spears album) Alone!. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as a vio of CRYSTAL, NALBUMS, and RS. A single primary source, and secondary sources citing that primary source with no independent confirmation, of something that MAY happen in the future, aren't enough to support any article, and we all know this. I conceded that in six months to a year, we'll need to undelete it, but for all we know, she'll shave her head again, go dog fighting with Michael Vick, bust Plaxico Burress out of prison, and microwave and eat her children in a gala banquet with all of those guys, and Paris Hilton and Mackenzie Philips, before summoning the ghost of Elvis and burning chicago to the ground (again). All this then precludes her label from releasing anything but her from her contract. (yes, overblown sarcasm. She could though, have another breakdown, say something stupid, and the label shelves the project for years.)ThuranX (talk) 05:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * People who want to delete this article is being subjective, these people doesnt look forward the sake of wikipedia, they are trying to delete an article with sources and official news about its release. I agree with the next comment, even if she lose control again, they will release it. IT not just her website that confirms it release, also MTV had announced it, and, as u can check on the article, Sony Japan. Keep this article, it's about a future/official/confirmed release. Fortunato luigi (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * A bunch of stupid sarcasm and bullcrap. They released Blackout during her mental breakdown, so even if she was going to have another one, theyw ould still release this. Plus, her official website posting an official press release makes is plenty to support it. Not to mention Amazon and MTV. ---Shadow (talk) 05:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep: Her official site has confirmed this release and the new single. You can't delete it this time around.--Paul237 (talk) 06:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per the obvious fact that we will clearly have an article about this at some point. Since the artist is so notable I'm sure we'll have enough non-trivial coverage by independent reliable media by the end of this AfD discussion to make this debate moot and little more than an exercise in guideline wonking. Before you nominate something like this you'll want to ask yourself will this be notable, as in 2 examples of non-trivial coverage by reliable independent sources, by the end of the AfD timeframe? If the answer is yes, then don't nominate it anyway. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 11:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP this is now up to 149 google news stories, last time it was AfD'd there were only 12 news stories. This was around before at Singles (Britney Spears album) and The Singles Collection (Britney Spears album)  was deleted speedily in the past, and AfD'd before. See also Articles for deletion/The Singles Collection (Britney Spears album) (2nd nomination) and Articles for deletion/The Singles Collection (Britney Spears album) for earlier debates.  Before not many of the contributors voted on it, but at least some appear to now. ALso deprotect the earlier names so that they can become redirects. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP We have good sources from Spears' site, AND NOTABLE. Dennissell (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment This album is confirmed to be released by Britney.com therefore,i thnk it should be keep.

Keep. It is an official album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Affieq (talk • contribs) 25 September 2009 09:12 UTC


 * Comment I'd like to remind the closing admin that AFD is a discussion and not a vote. I also don't see most of these comments addressing notability concerns. Actually, most of them just say "it exists". Sure, Dale cited WP:CRYSTAL as a deletion reason, but it's not the only reason he used. I cannot find any reliable, third-party sources. That means other than Spears' website, other than fansites, other than fan-forums. It doesn't meet WP:NALBUMS for that reason. talking  birds  15:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment There are now third party sources ie retailers advertising this collection and a tracklisting. Meets guidlines now. Jayy008 (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment MTV and Amazon have it. Also, now we have a tracklisting, so that reason can't be used. ---Shadow (talk) 01:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per WP:NALBUMS, "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." I see no reason to contradict the general rule here.  Although the album has not yet been released, WP:CRYSTAL allows for future events if they are notable and are almost certain to occur.  And in this case, even if the album were to be cancelled, there would likely be a lot of coverage surrounding the cancellation, making this notable as a cancelled album.  Of course, in the unlikely event that it gets cancelled without significant coverage, deletion may prove appropriate, buy as of now I don't see any guideline preventing keeping. Rlendog (talk) 02:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Sony Music Japan confirmed the tracklisting, more release dates have been revealed, so it doesn't fail any guidelines. -- Platinum  Fire  13:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please only vote once in a deletion discussion and use Comment for any other things you would like to add to the discussion. talking  birds  14:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, hey, hey, esasy boy (or girl), i gonna quote wiki's page for AoD "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." that means that we can write Keep infinity of times, as long we aport something to the discussion, so please, read before you speak, thanks. Keep Keep Keep Keep Fortunato luigi (talk) 03:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep It has notable coverage on MTV, etc.  D r e a m Focus  20:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I guess this is allowed under the circumstances.  JBsupreme (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Of course the latest Britney Spears release is notable. It is an official release that will be promoted with a new single, that has gained press coverage from the likes of Billboard, MTV, Amazon, and the news is starting to trickle out. There is a tracklisting now. This page will only grow over the next few months. BambooBanga (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - The album has been officially confirmed by Britney's website, retailers have it, MTV and the press are mentioning it. It's notable enough, just with being a Britney Spears album (if we have Chaotic the EP) and a hits collection with new material. RayOfLight (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - We have a tracklisting, an official confirmation, 3rd parties reporting about the album, a first single of that album that will be released within 13 hours, worldwide release dates and a cover will soon be released. Enough reasons to keep this article. --84.25.117.15 (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * MOTION TO CLOSE EARLY This looks overwhelming. Miami33139 (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, it is clear that more people wish to keep it, not to mention that since nomination, the article has been updated to include all needed information. No need for further discussion. ---Shadow (talk) 07:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added sources showing non-trivial coverage by NBC Miami and Rolling Stone Magazine. That should do it as it now satisfies WP:N. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 12:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Snowball Keep Easilly meets our inclusion threshold per sources added by Vyvyan Basterd and others, Britney is noteable enough to deserve an exception from Crysal,  and anyway that no longer appies to the albumn now we know it exists. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment It can't be snowed as there are still delete !votes left. I'm sure the closing admin can judge the article based on what it looks like now and not when it was nominated and I'm sure the admin can see through the heckling of the first few keep !votes and the attempt to have an article deleted based on an essay with no reference to any actual policy or even guideline that would apply. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 20:34, 29 September 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.