Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MadGibbs

: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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

=[[MadGibbs]]=

:{{la|MadGibbs}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MadGibbs Stats])

:({{Find sources|MadGibbs}})

The article is an unsourced announcement of a not-yet-released debut album. I'm proposing deletion per WP:NOTADVERTISING. --Stfg (talk) 18:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. It's too early for an article on this album; it lacks a release date and any confirmation that it's actually happening. Four tracks have been released, true, but they already have their own articles. If and when this comes out, an article might be appropriate - but, at this point, I think it's premature. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. There is [http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/news/id.17769/title.blu-reveals-secret-album-ucla-produced-entirely-by-madlib/ this article], where it's mentioned in one line at the end, but there's also this [http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/music_blog/2011/11/madlib-freddie-gibbs-thuggin-ep.html LA Times blog], which I think is a reliable source for this. There's also [http://allhiphop.com/2012/10/12/exclusive-freddie-gibbs-preps-mad-gibbs-project-with-madlib-planning-movies-for-esgn-label/ this], which I judge to be some significant coverage in a semi-reliable source. This is all I can find, though, and I don't think it quite meets the WP:GNG criteria. The coverage has been relatively light, and is all on blogs; even if those blogs are considered reliable to a degree, you'd expect more coverage in the usual newspapers and magazines if this was indeed a significant release. I think it's likely there will be more significant coverage once this is released. Delete with no prejudice to recreation if solid sourcing appears in future. --Batard0 (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2012 (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.