Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crunk Rock
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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. Merge discussion can be continued on the article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Crunk Rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NALBUMS. This is an unreleased album without WP:Reliable sources to establish its notability as an unreleased album. Three of the four sources in the article are self-promotion: The artist's list of possible guest artists [1], all but one [2] unconfirmed, his estimate that the album was "like 65 percent, maybe 70 percent done" [3] a year after it was to have been released, and a "synergy" statement by the label that signed him 15 months ago [4]. There are no sources to indicate independent interest in this album; one has expressed doubt that the album will ever be completed [5]. Yappy2bhere (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROD was declined (deprod - there is already sufficient coverage of this album despite it not being released yet), but neither "sufficient" nor "yet" seem justified by the sources. Yappy2bhere (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/Merge to Lil Jon. You need to look at all of the coverage that's out there, not just what's in the article. This album has been a long time coming, and has been the subject of regular news items for a long time. Yes, it hasn't been released, and yes it's a rap album, but that doesn't automatically mean that it needs to be deleted. If you search in Google news you'll find lots of coverage including this from MTV from 2006, and this from 2008. Looking solely at 2009, Rolling Stone has this from March last year, and this from October with considerable detail of the tracks and guest artists. There's this from the New Times, this from ABC, this from eTaiwan News, this from the Miami Herald. Rap albums often take years to appear, with many delays, and personally I would keep all content about an album like this in a section in the artist's article until a tracklisting and release date is confirmed, so a Merge would be preferred. Deletion doesn't give us the option of merging it, and given that the artist is notable, I don't see deleting content basically describing what he's been doing for the past few years (at least it could substantially do that given the sources available) as a positive move. So in summary, to address the concerns of the nominator, it does have reliable sources to establish its notability and independent interest, and many of the tracks and guests are confirmed and can be sourced. Somehow I suspect this would have a much better chance if it was a rock album that had been delayed for years, but such is Wikipedia.--Michig (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From your 10 September 2009 Rolling Stone reference: "Although Jon told Billboard in 2007 that Crunk Rock would be a half-rock/half-hip-hop hybrid of “real rock guitars” and his trademark bounce, Jon now predicts a far more eclectic album that flirts with house music, pop and R&B." [6] It appears then that the article doesn't even have a correct track listing, let alone a reliable source for it, and violates WP:CRYSTAL as speculation about "songs that might be on the album". Per WP:NALBUMS, "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," and "sometime next year" is not a release date. I'll read through your sources, but what I found was "where is he now" with occasional editorial smirking. Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Selectively quoting guidelines to try to get something deleted is never helpful here. You should perhaps read the section "an unreleased album may qualify for an advance article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it", and the section you did quote is preceded in the guideline by "generally". We're judging the subject here, i.e. the album, not the article that we currently have about it, which is clearly in need of expansion and cleanup. Why do you not see a merge of the sourceable content to the Lil Jon article as an option? There's plenty that can be said about the album, and I said above, this would be worthwhile as an expanded section in the artist article. More examples of the coverage that's out there: MTV, HipHopDX, Gigwise, SixShot, HipHopDX, Fox news, More from Fox News, DigitalSpy, Rap2K, Rap2K. --Michig (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From your 10 September 2009 Rolling Stone reference: "Although Jon told Billboard in 2007 that Crunk Rock would be a half-rock/half-hip-hop hybrid of “real rock guitars” and his trademark bounce, Jon now predicts a far more eclectic album that flirts with house music, pop and R&B." [6] It appears then that the article doesn't even have a correct track listing, let alone a reliable source for it, and violates WP:CRYSTAL as speculation about "songs that might be on the album". Per WP:NALBUMS, "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," and "sometime next year" is not a release date. I'll read through your sources, but what I found was "where is he now" with occasional editorial smirking. Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Instead of trotting out a laundry list of "sources," choose a couple of them and say why they're relevant. A Google search for "crunk rock"+"damian grass" returns 445 copies of that same article, including the two that you represented as independent sources. I've warned you before about citing sources that you haven't read yourself. I've addressed your first melange in detail; before you ask anyone to read another, take the time to read it yourself and explain why it is relevant. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They're all relevent as they demonstrate that the album has received a wealth of independent coverage in reliable sources. You haven't warned me about citing sources that I haven't read myself - if I remember correctly the issue was that you were discounting sources that you hadn't read yourself, as anyone following your link can see.--Michig (talk) 07:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Instead of trotting out a laundry list of "sources," choose a couple of them and say why they're relevant. A Google search for "crunk rock"+"damian grass" returns 445 copies of that same article, including the two that you represented as independent sources. I've warned you before about citing sources that you haven't read yourself. I've addressed your first melange in detail; before you ask anyone to read another, take the time to read it yourself and explain why it is relevant. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the 2009 sources you cited above, Lil John was shooting a video on September 9 for a November 24 album release. (Miami Herald [7]) November 24 was the same release date he gave to Rolling Stone [8] when he plugged the album in September. As late as October 23 though he was still only "like 80 percent done." (AP wire, which you represented as two different sources [9] [10]) Of course, the album wasn't released in November. Can you cite a reference explaining why?
- No, it's obviously been delayed again. It's still an unreleased album, and nobody is claiming otherwise.--Michig (talk) 07:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's obviously been delayed again. It's still an unreleased album, and nobody is claiming otherwise.--Michig (talk) 07:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In the May 2006 MTV interview [11] he was plugging this album for its first release date. In the March 2008 MTV article [12] wasn't so much about this album but about where all his time had gone since the first release date. The March 2009 Rolling Stone article covered two free mixtapes he'd released, not "real" releases but " a decent segue aesthetically for that Crunk Rock album that’s supposed to come out at some point this year," and sniggered a bit at Lil John reprising Wayne's World, but didn't discuss this album. None of these help establish the track list or release date, and so are irrelevant to this deletion discussion. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, it's an unreleased album. It doesn't have a release date, as it hasn't been released yet.--Michig (talk) 07:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it doesn't have a confirmed release date, then it fails WP:NALBUMS. Yappy2bhere (talk) 07:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are entitled to your opinion, but that isn't what WP:NALBUMS says.--Michig (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NALBUMS: "[G]enerally, 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." I don't deal in opinion, I trade in fact. Yappy2bhere (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are entitled to your opinion, but that isn't what WP:NALBUMS says.--Michig (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it doesn't have a confirmed release date, then it fails WP:NALBUMS. Yappy2bhere (talk) 07:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, it's an unreleased album. It doesn't have a release date, as it hasn't been released yet.--Michig (talk) 07:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In the May 2006 MTV interview [11] he was plugging this album for its first release date. In the March 2008 MTV article [12] wasn't so much about this album but about where all his time had gone since the first release date. The March 2009 Rolling Stone article covered two free mixtapes he'd released, not "real" releases but " a decent segue aesthetically for that Crunk Rock album that’s supposed to come out at some point this year," and sniggered a bit at Lil John reprising Wayne's World, but didn't discuss this album. None of these help establish the track list or release date, and so are irrelevant to this deletion discussion. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Supposedly there will be a slew of guest performances on this album. Have any performers but this one [13] associated themselves with this album? Yappy2bhere (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, as the article states: "numerous release dates have been given for three years but none have come to fruition." When the album is released we can create an article at that time. Until then, we are just gazing into a crystal ball. JBsupreme (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Using the available sources to cover the facts about the album as they have emerged over the years isn't gazing into a crystal ball. --Michig (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/merge per Michig and the GNG. Polarpanda (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have expanded the article with the available sources, Hopefully it is now clear that there is plenty of valid content regarding this album, and that this belongs either in the article under discussion or in the Lil Jon article.--Michig (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Fast becoming a Chinese Democracy-style fiasco, but widely reported upon and clearly of encyclopedic value even if never released. Chubbles (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Somehow I doubt that the editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica would agree. Is it the unreleased album that's notable, or the one-man band who's flogging it? If it's the man, vote to merge, not to keep. Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't need to keep Britannica's biases about what is culturally valuable. Thankfully, we often don't, though hip-hop is usually one exception. The album (or concept, perhaps more properly at this stage) itself is far and away a standalone item worthy of note. Chubbles (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The genre of the album is irrelevant to this discussion. You say that the album is "widely reported upon", but in truth it's the artist Lil Jon that's the subject of these stories, and Lil Jon uses them as an opportunity to flog a failed project. Who wouldn't, but that doesn't make the project notable or of encyclopedic value in its own right. This vaporous album is merely Lil Jon trivia which belongs, if anywhere, in Lil Jon's biography as the coda to his career. Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't need to keep Britannica's biases about what is culturally valuable. Thankfully, we often don't, though hip-hop is usually one exception. The album (or concept, perhaps more properly at this stage) itself is far and away a standalone item worthy of note. Chubbles (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep thanks to Michig's expansion. Per WP:NALBUMS, unreleased albums are in general not notable. However, also per WP:ALBUMS, "In a few special cases, an unreleased album may qualify for an advance article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it" (Chinese Democracy being one of these exceptions). I believe there's enough sourced material here to support an independent article. At worst, I'd support it being merged into Lil Jon, though I don't consider that the best option because it would verge on dominating Lil Jon's article (WP:WEIGHT). Gongshow Talk 21:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've restored the AfD message deleted by user:NewOrleans4Life Yappy2bhere (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The multiple sources are reliable, non-trivial, and independent of the subject. Kudos to Michig for adding them to the article. J04n(talk page) 10:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Covered in multiple reliable sources. Ridernyc (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.