Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Peck's second studio album
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Maxim(talk) 14:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but seeing at which the stage the article is in, I think the consensus here was to delete, but it doesn't mean it can be recreated as a better article. Maxim(talk) 14:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Danielle Peck's second studio album
AfDs for this article:
No sources, WP:CRYSTAL Caldorwards4 04:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, no sources to be seen, blatant WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above.--JForget 00:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Crystalballery, and probably won't be notable when it's released. i said 00:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Danielle Peck is notable, and her first album is notable, so I imagine her second album will be notable too. The lead single from this album ("Bad for Me") has been released, so I think there's sufficient evidence that project album exists. The article needs work, not deletion. Bondegezou 10:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- PS: I've done a little bit of clean-up on the article, including inserting one reference. Bondegezou 10:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - I don't doubt that there will be a second album, but there is close to zero real information. Stripped of unverifiable information, and there is nothing left of the article beyond the name of one single. We don't even have an album name!-- Whpq 17:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- You've identified a real problem with the article, but might I suggest you are not following policy in tackling that problem. WP:N#Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines is clear that the first steps in dealing with an article like this are to try to improve it, and to try to get others to improve it (e.g. with a notability tag). An AfD is only appropriate, and I quote, "[i]f appropriate sources cannot be found". Let's try to make the article better: if appropriate sources cannot be found, then would be the time to consider deletion. I've inserted one citation and I've asked the Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit for help. I'll try to find some more WP:RS. Bondegezou 09:34, 21 September 2007 (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.
