Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hollie

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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 no consensus to delete. Please take any merge discussion to the talk page of the article. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hollie

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL. i B e n 20:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Hollie Steel. Reyk _YO! 23:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to main article. It's too new but there's no reason to delete altogether. -- Banjeboi 16:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - IMHO, a merge would be pointless, since this information is already covered at Hollie Steel. The album is due out in one month; either keep or delete with no prejudice to recreate after the record's release. Radiopathy •talk• 18:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any info not already in Hollie Steel and keep redirect. Airplaneman ^talk 19:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as there is a reference for the date it is to be released [1] there is no reason for deletion. ('Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable' is satisfied; not a reason for deletion now)Mohamed Magdy (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That the album has a release date is immaterial. WP:NALBUMS states that "unreleased albums are in general not notable" and this album - to be released on a record label about which I can find no information - is certainly no exception. Even without that, I would recommend delete right now - the article is sourced only by primary references or local press so there really is no notability. "The launch is expected to create considerable interest in the album from both the national media and the major record labels" is borderline spam and certainly WP:CRYSTAL. I42 (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The record label is the Steels' own label, as stated in a reference in the article, so there is information. It is also on VVr2 Records which is a notable label. She finished in sixth place on Britain's biggest talent show, and her official website does give a lot of information, such as the release date of her second single and album. There are lots of articles of unreleased albums and this article does give reliable sources, so does satisfy WP:CRYSTAL and should be kept. Hassaan19 (talk) 11:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is, nothing from her own website establishes any notability, and notability is needed in spades to counter WP:NALBUMS assertion that unreleased albums are not normally notable - self-released albums even less so. I42 (talk) 12:59, 16 February 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.