Deletion of Fergie second studio album

Comment: Fergie is clearly a notable artist and every album/single she's released as a solo artist and nearly every one she's released with Black Eyed Peas has its own article. So, once released, I presume this article will be notable, even if it doesn't chart. However, to be more methodical about this, I checked , which basically comes down to whether there is sufficient verifiable material to make up an independent article. This article currently has three citations, although the first one should probably go. I only said "weak keep" above and accept that's not many citations
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MUSIC)

Comment: I think the quotation you give from  needs to be read in context. The main concerns addressed at  are about verifiability and avoiding original research: this article has citations. Most of the things specifically discouraged by  do not apply here. The one sentence there about "unreleased products (''e.g.'', movies, games, ''etc.'')" says that they "require special care to make sure that they are not advertising" -- again, I don't see that being a problem in this article. Moreover, there is an implicit recognition there that such articles ''can'' be appropriate. Some distinction is also made around cases where "preparation for the event is not already in progress", implying there is less of an isse when preparation ''is'' in progress. In this case, work has begun on the album. I feel that, if people have  concerns, they should spell these out in more detail as to how they feel a particular article fails the policy. That  is misused in other AfD debates is no reason to repeat the error
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:CRYSTAL)