Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled (R. Kelly 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   delete. Argument that deletion is necessary per WP:NALBUMS is clearly rooted in current guidelines and not really addressed by keep !voters. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Untitled (R. Kelly album)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

We don't even know the name of this album. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the name of the album is "Untitled", well referenced with reliable sources. - 2 ... says you, says me 02:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think Wp:BEFORE wasn't followed here: a Google search for "r kelly untitled" brought up this hit as result No5. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) | (talk to me) | (What I've done)  15:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP:NALBUMS basically says that albums shouldn't have their own article until the title, release date and track list have all been verified. It does note that "in a few special cases an unreleased album may qualify for an advance article" if there's a sufficient amount of verifiable info about it.  But since there's only about a paragraph here, I think that the verifiable info here can go to the artist's article until we get the release date and track list.  Cliff smith  talk  02:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - So the fact that he said he's going to call it "Untitled", saying, "y'all call it what y'all like", is irrelevant (see the MTV link I provided - and I'd certainly call them verifiable). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) | (talk to me) | (What I've done)  09:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't questioning the veracity of the link, I'm just saying that according to the guideline there needs to be more than that for the album to qualify for its own article. Cliff smith  talk  18:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: Frankly I have been into news and issues of internet song leakage, and R. Kelly is no exception. Usually a website that I visit that goes by the name "RnB Music Blog" and many others at times post leaked songs and leaked information (such as where the song really came from or the title of an upcoming album in which the leaked song supposed to appear in). Sometimes someone who has access straight from the horse's mouth should be the only one authorized to write this kind of article (following ALL Wikipedia guidelined as well.) The only reason this kind of information surfaced is because such kind of websites (like the one I mentioned) are being used as a source - those kind of sources actually should be avoided because they don't qualify for any kind of reliability nor worthy of being one.

That's what you get from patronizing leaked material from wherever it comes from - on and offline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.183.120 (talk • contribs)
 * Merge the salient points to Kelly's article - there isn't enough information about the album for an article yet.--Michig (talk) 16:31, 24 June 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.