Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pinkprint (2nd 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   keep. postdlf (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The Pinkprint
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTADVERTISING, and WP:NALBUMS failure. Note that this is not a WP:GNG problem, and meeting the general notability guideline is not a counterargument. Through general convention, we do not create articles about albums until they have three essential elements: a confirmed release date, a confirmed title,and a confirmed tracklist. The Pinkprint does not have the third element: there is no confirmed tracklist. Album articles released before that time invariably become edit-wars over leaked tracks and promotional puff-pieces. This article has been no exception to that rule. For those that will scream "But the article will just be created again in a few weeks", why yes, it probably will. But it won't consist solely of advertising when it does. &mdash;Kww(talk) 17:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree that this is publicity. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There does not need to be a full article for The Pinkprint yet. It feels like most of the edits the past few weeks have been unsourced additions to the tracklist (or removal of tracks for which sources indicate they will be on the album). I'm not sure whether we should delete the history or not, but I do agree that, until the tracklist is verifiable in full, this title should be nothing more than a redirect to (a section of) Nicki Minaj's article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:NALBUMS does not require a track listing; that is only a general rule. It is also noted that high-profile projects that are heavily covered in third party sources, such as this album, are an exception. It should also be noted that it is standard practice for hip hop albums to not have their final track lists revealed until shortly before the album release. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There's nothing about the publicity this album has received that places it in the category of "a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects" that WP:NALBUMS treats as an exception. It's typical promotion of a typical work by a typical artist.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Typical artists" don't have the prominence of those such as Minaj. Her record is described as "highly anticipated" and the 27 million Google results for "nicki minaj pinkprint" seem to support that. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Your definitions of "very small number" and "exceptionally high profile" are pretty loose if you believe that argument was sufficient.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Likewise, your arguments for CRYSTAL, NOTADVERTISING, and NALBUMS are rather weak. The album has a confirmed release date, eliminating CRYSTAL. The article may currently have some puffery but it's far from an advertisement. NALBUMS states, "Unreleased material ... is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources" (23 sources, most of which I would consider reliable and more than passing mentions, are cited in the article, not to mention the 27 million Google results I previously mentioned). –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In other cases I would have understand the issue but this album is coming out in a month and two weeks and this page is actually very relevant and necessary now. The album cover will be released this Monday, other things related will most likely come short after it. No reason to delete the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thijn23 (talk • contribs) 0:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  19:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  19:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep or Move to WP:Drafts while a full tracklist would be nice, Chase is correct in saying that it is not required. If no tracks were confirmed, I'd argue this doesn't warrant a separate article.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 00:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Only in the sense that compliance with guidelines is never required: "an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label" is explicit. Since no reasonable reading of the guideline would permit this article to exist, Chace's argument is completely devoid of merit.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case, Incubate at WP:Drafts and move-protect it until full list is verified.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 03:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yet you excluded the word "generally" at the beginning of that quote. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Because the exception to "generally" is defined, and there's no reason to believe that the exception applies. A well-orchestrated publicity campaign doesn't qualify an album for being one of "a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects", and your second argument is also inapplicable: "Unreleased material ... is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources" does not say "if there is significant independent coverage, no other part of the guideline need be considered". No one is arguing that there isn't significant independent coverage in reliable sources: that's a restatement of WP:GNG, which is not the issue here.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If it passes the GNG with significant independent coverage in reliable sources, then I really don't see the point in deleting it just because it lacks a track list. –Chase (talk / contribs) 01:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep It passes per WP:NALBUMS as it features substantial coverage in real-world context and third-party sourcing. Deluxe artwork unveiled on November 2.  livelikemusic  my talk page! 03:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So your interpretation of "an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label" is? Like Chase, you are arguing that it meets the GNG, which is not at issue.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We have 2/3 criteria generally required at this point, I think you're nitpicking at an article, when there are others that I'm sure require more attention for deletion than an album coming out in a bit more than one months time. The articles features a wide variety of real-world context beyond a first-person resource, and I simply don't see the need in deleting and/or redirecting the article. I believe other articles that exist should have attention brought to them, instead of being ignored as they always are.  livelikemusic  my talk page! 04:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep There, everyone else said it. The Pinkprint will be out soon, so it will really be useful to fellow readers. Once again, it passes the policies for albums. Hence, my decision. DEW.   Adrenaline  ( Nahnah4 ) 09:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The album comes out soon. It's highly anticipated. It's been covered by over 20 different reliable sources. The artwork is out. Clearly doesn't fail WP:NALBUMS. Easy decision. BlaccCrab (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. I just took a look back through the current version of the article. It does not have the tracklist speculation issue of earlier versions. It does have an extensive list of sources. Even though WP:NALBUMS wants a track list, I think the other two items with the depth and breadth of coverage currently present is enough to justify an article; I feel the encyclopedia is better served keeping this article in place than deleting it. —C.Fred (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. If it gets deleted someone will just have to make it again when it comes out. Its clearly notable, highly anticipated and not advertising. Haminoon (talk) 19:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per the majority of keep reasons above. ThirdWard (Lolcakes25) (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. As above with the majority, plus agreeing with the fact that if it gets deleted, someone will only have to make the article again. Her other albums have articles, plus the date of release is not far away at all. Also can I point out that it now has all three major elements? Shouldn't that wipe this deletion notice straight off? Limbsaw  ~talk~  22:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, it doesn't. It just has the usual gang of incompetents adding fake tracklists based on forum rumors before an official one is announced. That kind of thing is the reason our guideline against having this kind of article exists.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:01, 7 November 2014 (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.