Talk:Indigo (Chris Brown album)

Request to un-draft

@JJMC89: This should not have been drafted again. Please move it back to mainspace. The article is well sourced by news sources, has a release date, cover and track list. It clearly meets WP:NALBUMS with flying colours. Anyone can see that. The article has grown since it was nominated for deletion in early May, more details have been revealed and sources added. This should not have been drafted again when it has been expanded and improved and not in the same quality it was in when it was decided to draftify it. Ss112 02:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Nothing added since the AfD close (Instagram and listen links for sources to personnel and tracks) contributes to notability, so I'm not going to reverse. Having a release date, track listing, and/or cover do not impact notability. You can ask Randykitty, as the AfD closer, if it is okay move it back. If they agree, I'll drop the protection (or they can). (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@JJMC89: I am finding it a bit hard to believe that you think the album is not notable with 18+ news sources on the article. Perhaps news sources have not been added about the album's release date, but they are out there. As is said in deletion discussions, sources are out there, they're just not on the article. I understand notability is not inherited, but this clearly meets the criteria and is a mainstream release considering who the artist is. We now have a definitive release date and a track list, indicating an imminent release. Keeping this drafted when editors will be searching for it and the plethora of news sources on it is misguided. Ss112 04:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Randykitty: Please un-draft the page. Most of the discussion took place in early May, when Indigo was a speculative title. It was later confirmed by Brown. He has posted the cover art himself, and revealed the track list. News sources have reported on the title. Some have been added. I just added a few. What more is honestly needed? Ss112 04:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I only judged what changed in the article since the closure. As to whether or not it met a notability guideline before that was a matter for the AfD. If the closure was wrong or there is new information since, DRV is the venue to appeal after discussing with Randykitty. The obvious tipping point will be the album's release, at which point this will all be moot. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with JJMC89, I see nothing that has been added and that adds to notability. --Randykitty (talk) 06:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Randykitty: @JJMC89: I do. I don't believe with the amount of sources present that another editor would redirect this album in any other case, but because there was a deletion discussion three weeks ago, both of you are choosing to ignore the existence of news sources, both on the article and out there on this topic. What is honestly going to convince you? When the album is released and charts on record charts? Because it will. The amount of notable artists featured on this album, by a notable artist. There is enough coverage. Both of you are also ignoring that at the time editors who wanted to drafity the article commented, there was significantly less coverage, no cover art and no track list. I will ask another admin to look into this, because this is ridiculous and a bad decision. It clearly meets WP:NALBUMS. Ss112 08:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Randykitty: @JJMC89: I believe Ss112 is correct here. This is ridiculous to the highest extent. The reliable news sources can be found on google in literally less than 5 seconds - here, just look at this link, thats all you need to prove this article is legitimate: https://www.google.com/search?q=chris+brown+indigo&source=lnms&tbm=nws -- In my opinion, the admins in control of blocking this article clearly have no interest in checking for sources, i wonder why they are still even Admins if they don't care to upkeep the site with relevant articles. Teambreezybreezy (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• Take it to DRV if you must. And while you're at it, please also read WP:SOCK and WP:DUCK. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Randykitty: Who are you accusing of sockpuppetry here? I sure hope you don't mean me just because "Teambreezybreezy" agreed with me. I sure as hell am not about to start creating sockpuppet accounts to back me up. Ss112 00:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
• @Randykitty:@Ss112: Welp, would you look at that. The album is out for pre-order on iTunes. Now there is no reason for this article to still be drafted. Can you please publish this article now, Randykitty? LINK: https://music.apple.com/us/album/indigo/1466876988 Teambreezybreezy (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• The main page will become unlocked on the 28th per the deletion discussion, so we'll have to wait til then to publish. --WuTang94 (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Sandstein: Hi, i noticed you changed the protection level/expiration for this page. However, it is now 100% confirmed that this album and the information provided on this article is legit, so this wiki entry absolutely should be published. The album releases tomorrow, but has released today in countries such as Australia, New Zealand, etc. I will provide you with the iTunes link of the released album. Please undraft, there is no longer any reason for this to be drafted. Thank you, i hope you have a great day. :) Teambreezybreezy (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Teambreezybreezy: Sandstein said in their closure of the deletion review that the article can be moved back when the protection expires tomorrow. I will do that as soon as it happens. The admins above have done nothing but waste everybody's time, throw out bad faith accusations that as you and I are the only editors to comment here that we must be the same person sockpuppeting (because new editors would apparently be "unlikely to find a draft talk page"), and pretend like they're blind and can't see the tonnes of news sources (some of which are on the article) that are out there and would be considered substantial news coverage in any other case. They're not going to respond, and I suppose nor will Sandstein. They clearly don't care about popular music whatsoever nor really get what is and is not notable in the music world, so don't waste your time. (Also, hope you don't mind, but I removed the refs you placed in your message, as you already provided an external link to it—one external link suffices, otherwise we'd have to put a talk page reflist in, and that bugs people.) Ss112 19:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Ss112: Right, i agree its been a total waste of everybodys time. They act like they don't see all of the sources, and the funniest part is - all it takes is one quick google search of "Chris Brown Indigo" and you literally have tons of articles to chose from. Its sad, wikipedia is supposed to be the most reliable site for information, yet their own admins dont even pay attention to things that should be on this website. I guess we will have to wait until tonight, but wow, absolutely dissapointed in how this went - especially with the unprofessional accusation of the sockpuppetry as you mentioned, i feel like that was the only response the admin had left because he knew we were all right about this article, but he/she was probably just too lazy to care - just ridiculous. And no worries about the links, i didn't even know that. Thank you! Teambreezybreezy (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Undate this

This album is Now 2x Platinum, as of today. Please update the certification. Thank U KamKamanga (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Long time 2x platinum, still no update Dillanbrown17 (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

"Early On (Chris Brown song)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Early On (Chris Brown song). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Richhoncho (talk) 11:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

"Early 2K (song)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Early 2K (song). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Richhoncho (talk) 11:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

World wide Sales

ADD that , The album has sold 10+ million Copies Across the World. UPDATE THIS PAGE!! KamKamanga (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Opening discussion on vandalism, cherrypicking and editorial bias on this article

There is a pattern of blatant vandalism and cherrypicking on this article whereby conseriable sourced content is being removed without justification or any sound explination. Moreover, cherrypicking is being done to selectively highlight only negative reception, thereby violating WP:NPOV. It's quite sad to see this kind of editorial biased, which is consistent with the editorial bias present on other album articles of said artist. Failure to provide justification for all these changes on this talk page will result in the article being reverted to its prior state before the vandalism occured.

I absolutely agree. I tried to fix it and they tried to block me for being a sockpuppet of someone I'm not. I just saw the same thing happened to User: Instantwatym. They're doing all they can to push this negative narrative, something very fishy is going on.--All weekend on the weeknd (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

This is an ongoing issue with this artists' album articles. Anyone who tries to correct the disruptive editing on these articles gets falsely accused of being a sockpuppetry or ban evading. There's also tandem disruptive editing to escape 3RR violations. It's why I stopped editing this artists' album articles. I actually suggested to an admin that they open a sockpuppet investigation on me so that I'm not falsely accused of sockpuppetry in the future as a result. Some editors are playing games and using loopholes and excuses to protect negative narratives and disruptive edits. It's a shame really considering it goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. Ideally if someone takes issue with the content included, they should provide sound justification for why they are removing it and in situations where there is mass removal of sourced content, they should open up talk page discussion where they justify its removal and engage in debate. Instead of freely removing it and then accusing anyone who tries to revert the edits as being a sockpuppet. Instantwatym (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Just WP:DENY. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 05:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)