Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fours Deuces & Trays

:{{la|Fours Deuces & Trays}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fours_Deuces_%26_Trays Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Fours Deuces & Trays}})

I had previously redirected this album article to the artist, G-Slimm, because after searching high and low I was unable to substantiate the claim that it had charted. It's now been recreated, and the references are still inadequate to establish notability; one is a bare mention, another is a music download, and the remaining two merely assert that it was locally important. The artist's tragically premature death and plans by a major label to reissue the album notwithstanding, there are not reliable sources demonstrating the album's notability and justifying its having its own article. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• Delete The only RS in the article is https://www.offbeat.com/articles/the-mind-of-mystikal/. There is an entry at [http://www.allmusic.com/album/fours-deuces-trays-mw0000176634 AllMusic], but it is only a track listing. Without RSes, I can't support inclusion. While redirects are cheap, to avoid this problem we should lock the page for recreation (read: salt). Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: it should be pointed out that several editors tried and failed to find any evidence of the supposed Billboard chart position, which would be just about the only point on which this would pass WP:NALBUM. Richard3120 (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
• Redirect to G-Slimm and I would think it warrants a couple of sentences at least. Not sure what 'local' 'underground' hit means, and surely the Billboard sales chart shows it was a popular album. This is a pre-internet release so searching high and low on Google is unlikely to produce compelling results. Sionk (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

::{{u|Sionk}}, this is exactly what I was talking about in my statement above – the Billboard sales position appears to be pure fiction, as we haven't been able to find any evidence of the album charting, so there is no evidence of national popularity. Richard3120 (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• Delete I also cannot find evidence of the Billboard chart position. In any event it's a low placing on what seems to be a restricted genre chart and I'm not certain if it is supposed to refer to an annual chart or a weekly placing. It is not enough to get it over the line re. notability IMO. Eagleash (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
• Delete Perhaps a redirect, but the album itself certainly does not justify its own page. Mystic Technocrat (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.