Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mika's second studio 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The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Even though the AfD expired there has not been any closing admin action on it. Seeing as the nominator has since withdrawn the nomination I am inclined to mark it as such. That being said, since the album now has a name and this article redirects to it, I don't think it would be controversial to delete the redirect after a certain point, though I'm not sure if it should be done now as some might legitimately type in this article title at this point. Valley2city^‽ 02:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mika's second studio album

Mika's second studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This album is not yet confirmed by the artist, fails

• Delete (or merge) unsourced but still future album. JJL (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but move back to Mika's second studio album as no title has been confirmed. However, the album has been covered in multiple reliable sources—I've added several citations. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title, introduced with this edit, might be vandalism, actually, bordering on a BLP violation. Maybe the article should be moved ASAP. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that it's problematic to move an article while an AfD is already underway, but I am sufficiently concerned about this unsourced title that I have gone ahead and moved it. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and recreate when the album is released. Gosox5555 (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and recreate as mentioned by
  talk) 20:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Album's release date is reported in reliable sources (BBC for one), so this does not appear to be a
  say no to drama 21:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I'm in agreement with
  talk) 16:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep As stated previously by Jayron32, it would be a confounded decision to delete this article for it only to be recreated with the same information in a month’s time. This is especially considering the respectable amount of reliable sources referenced. Freshpop (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:NALBUMS says that "generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label." What's here is well-referenced, no contest there, but since the track list is incomplete and the title is yet to be known, a merge into the artist's article pending the title and complete track list seems appropriate to me. Cliff smith ^talk 17:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• The title of the album, We Are Golden, has been announced on Mika's official site. [1]
  talk) 15:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Withdrawn as right now, the official title of Mika's second studio album is now announced. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 01:54, 15 July 2009 (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.