Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spirit in the Dark (Lindsay Lohan album)
Appearance
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spirit in the Dark (Lindsay Lohan album)
- Spirit in the Dark (Lindsay Lohan album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreleased albums are generally not notable. No reliable sources.
talk) 19:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
But there definately was a planning to release this album, and all songs were really considered as real, and it's nice to know about it. RuuBjAh (talk) 21:28, 30 November, 2009
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No position yet but unreleased albums can be notable if they meet WP:GNG. This happens a lot with famous albums by famous musicians. I'm sure the posthumous album by Michael Jackson met notability requirements pretty much from the day it was announced. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Yes, unreleased albums can be notable, but they generally are not, per talk) 22:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Yes, unreleased albums can be notable, but they generally are not, per
- Delete. As ]
- Delete, it's obvious by now that an album by this title is not going to happen. And I did a thorough survey of available sourcing re: this album before removing the bulk of the material from GNG. See also previous merge/redirect discussion from January 09 at Talk:Lindsay Lohan's third album. Nothing new of substance or any new sources have really surfaced since then. Siawase (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no reliable sources to prove notability. Bravedog (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless evidence of ]
- Comment: Just for reference, a better sourced "draft" version can be found in the history of ]
- 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.