Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled The Saturdays 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 no consensus. MuZemike 23:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Wordshaker

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Lacks references to reliable 3rd party sources. WP:CRYSTAL based on speculation. Good example of WP:HAMMER. Only reference is to a CD sale site. Might be notable once released and reliable sources are available but not today.RadioFan (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've just boldly directed this to Colonial Masses. I then redirected back to this page when I searched for it, and a lot of places said that it wasn't the title. However, I'd expect that play.com would be a pretty reliable source, though. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) | (talk to me) | (What I've done)  21:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's include that article in this discussion as well --RadioFan (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment, the references (a blog which still lists the album as untitled but has a speculative track list, and a CD sale site) there just dont support it. I dont doubt this album may meet notability guidlines at some point, that point isn't now however.


 * Comment, I would say Play.com is a reliable source for tracklists. They wouldn't be allowed to sell to the British market with speculative track lists without breaking regulations set by Trading Standards. I also don't see the problem of Twitter references as long as the profiles are verified. I've had a look and The Saturdays' Twitter profiles are verified by their official website as is the record label's 'welovepop' profile. ChelleKlass (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination and WP:NSONGS. Furball3 (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.  Enigma msg  16:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete for duplicate pages, keep for Wordshaker: Wordshaker is now confirmed as the album title, and the tracklist has been confirmed on other retailer lists as well (iTunes has the listing and track samples up, of which Popjustice did a mini-review). Considering that this is going to be released in a few weeks, and that confirmation just arrived today, won't it be pointless to delete it, since more sources will be popping up in the coming days and people will recreate it soon thereafter? SKS (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Wordshaker but delete other pages (Colonial Masses, Untitled Saturdays album etc). The title and tracklist have been confirmed by a number of sources, and the album will be released in just over two weeks and if deleted, it's no doubt going to be recreated so I think it should stay. --MissusCitrus (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. the article is notable, it has confirmed title, confirmed release date, is kind of well sourced, has a single release and is from a notable artist/group. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 04:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC))


 * Keep. It is a rather notable article and the title is indeed "Wordshaker". I do think the article could do with a bit of cleanup. Adam 94 (talk) 10:21, 27 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.