Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Boss Volume 2
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 redirect to Crooked I . Spartaz Humbug! 17:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Young Boss Volume 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable mixtape with very little media coverage. The two reviews are from non-notable websites. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 19:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 19:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I removed the PROD because it does have two reviews, and the artists are notable. It is sourced by two reviews that I agree may or may not pass wp:rs, so to me it depends on the perceived quality of the two sources in this case, http://www.thuglifearmy.com and http://www.hoodstars.net/home.shtml . Because it isn't instantly obvious that they are not reliable as sources (they aren't blogs or ad farms), I figured it was better to have a discussion before deleting, and correctly guessed you would AFD it if you felt strong enough about it. In a nutshell, I would rather see a little discussion first in a borderline case. I did see a crazy amount of torrent action on this, which is meaningless for this discussion, but tells me there may be better sources I just couldn't find quickly. PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 20:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the sources were blogs it wouldn't be instantly clear if it was reliable either. A lot of reliable sites have a blog format. The only way to establish their reliability is to look at the author (and some sort of link to determine they really are who they say they are). - Mgm|(talk) 11:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete/(redirect) I don't see why this "mixed tape" has to have its own article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 22:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment are we at no consensus based on a pure lack of interest? DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 04:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is one of those boarderline cases. It passes WP:V, it passes WP:N(generally), however it falls short in WP:MUSIC. Delete until such a time it's more notable...sorry. DigitalNinjaWTF 06:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Crooked I who is listed as the main performer. - Mgm|(talk) 11:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails to meet notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 22:06, 16 November 2008 (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.