Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big! (Betty Who album)

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 speedy keep. Feel free to renominate with a valid rationale. – bradv^🍁 21:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Big! (Betty Who album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Uricdivine (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Uricdivine (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. --Vaco98 (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- This article was literally minutes old and its infancy when it was nominated for deletion. It is being built out by me and is heavily source. Since the album has a solid release date, it does not violate WP:CRYSTAL. There's no reason to delete it. SomethingToTellYou (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep due to absence of deletion rationale, as per C1 of WP:CSK CT55555 (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:SOAP, blatant pre-release Music PR drive, seriously. Acousmana 09:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm in a weird spot, because I sort of agree, but still think the nominator needs to say why they nominated it, or this whole process is wrong. CT55555 (talk) 11:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  For the sake of the process here, the nominator has responded positively to feedback left on their user talk, even if they haven't refined their nomination message here. @Uricdivine: Would you like to add a little to your nomination to explain why you nominated the article? —C.Fred (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Betty Who and send to Draft: space (second choice: delete). Had either of the singles released in advance of the album's release charted, I'd say we'd have a case for going ahead and creating an article. However, the article fails to assert notability per WP:NALBUM: the BroadwayWorld piece is just a rewrapped press release, and the Paper interview focuses on Who, not Big!. If this album were by The Who, there'd be enough press coverage to easily meet WP:GNG, and I'd have no problem with an article at this point, since we have a title and a release date. However, with all respect to Betty Who, it's a little more of a speculative gaze into the crystal ball to expect this album to chart upon release. That said, rather than deleting the article outright, I'd like to park it in draft space for now, so we can continue to refine it and bring it live quickly if it hits specific notability in the future. —C.Fred (talk) 11:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy/Procedural Keep - This is already a mess with recommendations to keep or delete or redirect or draftify, and the reason it's a mess is because voters are trying to figure out what is or is not wrong with the article after getting no reasoning from the nominator. That runs afoul of WP:NOTARG and a procedural keep is mandated by WP:CSK. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I would have made the same recommendation pretty much regardless of the rationale laid out by the nominator, so I don't see a reason to stop this discussion just to restart another one immediately afterward. —C.Fred (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...but if this keeps going, it will probably end up as an equally useless "no consensus". ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we need a speedy close and then anyone who sees a reason to delete can start a process based on that. Currently we're in the ridiculous situation of the author not knowing why someone wants to delete their article and then first comment agreeing with the nominators reasoning, despite there being none. CT55555 (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to flag this on the talk page in case any admin want to create a solution CT55555 (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've sought help https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Strange_AfD_-_no_reason_to_delete_provided_-_admin/closer_input_welcomed CT55555 (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep invalid nomination. Artw (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2022 (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.