Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti (Rihanna 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Anti (Rihanna album)

Anti (Rihanna album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Don't be fooled by the references currently used; this doesn't meet notability criteria for albums since there is no confirmed release date or tracklist. It therefore is too early for this to have an article per WP:Notability (music)#Unreleased material and WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Definitely NOT delete, but Incubate, until we get more details regarding the actual release date and the track listing. Apart of that the article can be standalone, because we already have enough information for the development, writing, artwork, obviously singles and etc. — Tom^(T2ME) 19:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep it's an upcoming notable album and there's already a lot of (sourced) information on it, including the name, tracks, etc. This is a misuse of WP:CRYSTAL as this is both a certian event and what is included in the article is quite a bit of the non-speculative portions of the future albums. If there's anything speculative, it should be remove but the article on the whole is notable and fairly well sourced. --  R45  ^talk! 20:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• First of all, this isn't exactly a "speedy keep". Secondly, WP:CRYSTAL is based on unconfirmed release date. Third, see WP:Notability (music)#Unreleased material; albums should not have articles when there is no confirmed release date or official tracklist, so it on the contrary is NOT (yet) notable. Specific criteria for upcoming albums exists for a reason and should be put to use. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• From your link at WP:Notability (music)#Unreleased material:

Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources.

It does not say it has to have a track listing and release date are absolutely required (the words "in general" is used, and in the past there have been exceptions to this), but the principle is it should be notable and have reliable independent coverage. The article has a lot of reliable indepedent sources (72 references) discussing the album and the confirmed tracks, as well as its development. Given the scope and breath, it doesn't make sense to merge this into Rihanna's main article and frankly some common sense would suggest that this is one of those exceptional cases of a notable artist with reliable information out there on her next album. --  R45  ^talk! 21:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

"Common sense" is a meaningless argument and a cop-out response at best. Even if it wasn't, "common sense" if anything would actually not support including items without confirmed release dates. However, I might understand having an article on an album with a confirmed title, official release date, and many tracks confirmed. It would be more ideal to incubate this as Tomica points out than keeping it in mainspace. In fact, incubation is frequently used for albums ins like this before all the necessary details are confirmed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what your point is, I'm allowed to express my opinion. I don't think it should be deleted, and I expressed my point. Others will chime in, and either there'll be consensus to keep the article or not. You've stated your case, so just let the process work. --  R45  ^talk! 04:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• My point was that albums don't warrant articles without confirmed release dates. Also, I never explicitly said it had to be deleted, only that it shouldn't be in mainspace. Remember there is a difference between incubating an article (moving it away from mainspace) and deleting it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• My "your point" comment was directed at your need to keep trying to refute my opinion. You created this AFD with your case and stated your point - I simply don't agree with you. As such, I voted Keep. I've read the policies you cited, and I don't believe this nomination is in the spirit of why the guidelines exist. Personally I think you're Wikilawyering a bit here, and this article is probably a very good example of the exceptional circumstances where we keep an unreleased album without a release date. I am only one voice and there's no need to get defensive because I disagree with the nomination. --  R45  ^talk! 05:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Keep there is enough non-speculation content for an article. sst✈ 04:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Note that WP:NALBUMS is meant to be a supplement to the WP:GNG requirements. In this case, the article topic has received significant independent reliable coverage. If content in the article may be considered WP:CRYSTAL, the correct approach is to remove it from the article while keeping verifiable information. See WP:ARTN. sst✈ 04:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The fact that it fails WP:NALBUMS for having no confirmed release date or tracklist is why it doesn't (yet) warrant an article, regardless of how much coverage it has received. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

An article does not need to meet WP:NALBUMS as long as it meets WP:GNG. sstflyer alt 05:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it actually 'DOES need to meet WP:NALBUMS, which is the specific notability criterion for albums. Specific criteria exists for a reason and should be put to use. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. Plenty of source material to draw from... Binksternet (talk) 04:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• .....Except the prerequisites of release date and tracklist..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• The WP:GNG guideline does not need anything except significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 05:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• The relevant notability criteria for albums is WP:NALBUMS, which requires a confirmed title, official release date, and full track list in addition to coverage in multiple reliable sources. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• You are mistaken in believing that WP:NALBUMS must be met. If a topic meets any of the relevant notability guideline, then it is notable. NALBUMS co-exists with GNG; either one will suffice. GNG is a catch-all which opens the door for topics that are widely discussed in sources. Binksternet (talk) 06:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• On the contrary, WP:NALBUMS was made specifically for albums and requires more nuance. It exists for very good reason and is what should be applied. Meeting GNG—which is only a bare minimum threshold for any type of article—doesn't necessarily warrant an article when it fails criteria specifically made for certain types of articles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• If that's your position (and it appears to be your main argument here) then you will want to point everybody to the policy page stating that NALBUMS is required even when GNG is met. Everywhere else, a GNG article is perfectly suitable. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• I wouldn't go so far as to say "everywhere else"; for example, WP:NFF states "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles", and WP:BIOFAMILY states "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person". Focusing back on WP:NALBUMS, it also states "Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release". Simply stating that an album is being released sometime in the future is definitely not sufficient enough. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - There is a lot of info for this album. I know there's no official track list or release date, but Rihanna releasing the artwork shows intent that those bits of info will come available very shortly. There is so much commentary here that it is actually useful for readers want info. This is an encyclopedia after all... However, I would also not be oppose to Incubate either. But deleting this wealth of well written and well sourced material is a complete no-no.  — Calvin999 11:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
• Keep the artwork, title and details are all official and reliable. There's no point in deleting the article at this stage when it will obviously be recreated and/or expanded with info like the track listing and release date in due course anyway. CoolMarc 11:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't know why we waste time deleting or even incubating articles about upcoming album's by major recording artists that have received a lot of press coverage (even if they don't have a confirmed track list and release date). Let articles snowball! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• You've been told before by others that we aren't supposed to "let it snowball" when it doesn't meet notability criteria, regardless of who the artist is, and very well know better than to do that. WP:NALBUMS exists for good reason. Incubation is also most certainly NOT a "waste" of time. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• I think this can arguably be speedily kept per WP:SK#1, since the nominator fails to advance an argument why this article fails the general notability guideline. sstflyer alt 01:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• That's absurd; not only has there already been an "incubate" vote, but my rationale examined quite well how it doesn't meet WP:NALBUMS, which is the criterion that applies for albums. Meeting general notability guideline doesn't necessarily mean it warrants an article if it fails criteria specifically made for the type of article. When a more specific criterion exists for an article, which is WP:NALBUMS in this case, the more specific criterion should be applied since it was specifically made for that type of article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Keep — Per arguments above. Enough significant coverage by third-party reliable sources to constitute a valid article on Wikipedia. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 02:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
• Keep — Though no official release date nor track-listing (probably to prevent a leakage/immediate release), there is a significant amount of coverage for the article to sustain notability. However, the lead must at least reflect the contents of the article (So far the lead only has a single sentence). Chihciboy (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• I've said it before and I will say it again; the fact that it doesn't have an official tracklist or release date means it in fact is NOT notable enough for an article. Don't let the sheer number of references or what they say fool you when none of them confirm a tracklist or release date. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Not having a release date or track listing doesn't make it notable, despite being discussed extensively in reliable third-party publications, before and after its title was revealed? Yes, it is preferred that an album have a title, release date, and track list before having a standalone article, but that is only a guideline, to which there are occasional exceptions. This is an obvious one. Chase (talk | contributions) 19:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• "Only a guideline" is discouraged as an argument in AFD's and shouldn't be used as a cop-out like that. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not using it as a cop-out. I'm saying that as a guideline and not a hard rule, there are exceptions. The beauty of Wikipedia is that our guidelines and policies aren't hard rules, and topics that are obviously notable in the media that interest our readers can have articles even in unusual circumstances. I think you've made your point, Snuggums; there's no need to aggressively respond to everyone who disagrees with you. Chase (talk | contributions) 19:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• For once I actually agree with everything Chase is saying here, Snuggums. There is so much info present which is linked to a large amount of high quality sources which pretty much makes it notable despite the absence of a confirmed tracklist. In this circumstance, deletion is not necessary. It's a unanimous keep amongst voters, so I think it would be best if you took it down a notch. I do see why you nominated it for deletion for that reason though, but as Chase said, they are guidelines, not rules. This article is an exception.  — Calvin999 19:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• The reason I took to AFD is because original incubation was erroneously reverted. I would ideally have left it stay in draft space until it met all the WP:NALBUMS criteria. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• The article incubation was reverted because it was undiscussed and lacked consensus. You could have at least started a move discussion, since obviously something like that is going to be contested, as evidenced by the keep votes in this AfD discussion. sst✈ 04:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. The notion that this doesn't meet notability criteria is absurd. As one of the most anticipated album releases of 2015, there is an abundance of coverage in reliable sources. Chase (talk | contributions) 19:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Anticipated doesn't automatically mean it meets WP:NALBUMS. Besides, there isn't even any official confirmation it'll even be released in 2015. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• The sources present are more than enough to meet the GNG. As someone said above, you're just wikilawyering over one small detail (which isn't an end-all-be-all rule) and failing to understand the spirit of the title-tracklist-release guideline. Ever heard of Chinese Democracy? This is a very similar case. Chase (talk | contributions) 19:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - we know from the sources that the album exists, has a title, and will be released, just not when. Passes the WP:CRYSTAL test, and is clearly notable per WP:NMUSIC. It's snowing in here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• Keep—Majority of the sources listed comply to original research. Years later the album has got a title, the official artwork is out, there were promotions by Rihanna a few weeks back. Ok, the speculated track listing may be removed as there isn't confirmation what tracks are sure to be on the record. Surely, the context on this page is relevant to the upcoming album. There may be issues like unrefined prose or improper MOS but deletion? No, not at all. Don't delete the page, please. Arjann (talk)

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.