Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dido's third 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 keep. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 17:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dido's third studio album

Dido's third studio album (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

unsourced crystalgazing article Will ^(talk) 16:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete because it fails WP:CRYSTAL and lacks references and facts. –Dream out loud (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced crystal-ballery. Nominator encouraged to combine similar listings like this in the future. Stifle (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep two references were already in the article, they just needed to be formatted. Everyone seems to be rubber stamping these articles without even reading them, and no one seems to be at least doing a search on the Internet to see what facts are available. Its hard to search for an untitled project, but not impossible. Please no more knee jerk comments, do the hard work before you write. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as per above reason Mikyt90 20:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• There seems to be significant elements confirmed with some sources which does not violate the no crystal-balling policy Keep--JForget 00:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC).
• Keep This nomination betrays a complete and utter misinterpretation of what WP:Crystal means. The article provide sources (including references to a third album) to demonstrate that a notable album from a notable artist is forthcoming. Alansohn 00:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• You should look at the version that was nominated before saying I'm misinterpretating WP:CRYSTAL :) Will ^(talk) 07:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • You should read Wikipedia:Deletion Policy, which you have clearly violated, and which requires you to pursue improvements to the article, merger and discussion before initiating an AfD. If you had followed policy, you would not have created your laundry list of AfDs. Alansohn 13:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't see anywhere where it says I must. It says "Alternative methods", not "Required prerequisites". Besides, the burden of proof of sources is on those seeking to include, not delete. Will ^(talk) 15:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
      • The wording from Wikipedia:Deletion Policy is rather clear: "Alternatives to deletion: Editing - If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." The burden of respinsibility on those nominating articles for deletion is to seek ways to avoid deletion before throwing up a laundry list of AfDs. Unless you can demonstrate your efforts in this regard, you have violated Wikipedia policy. Alansohn 16:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
        • If I make four reversions in twenty-four hours, I've violated 3RR. If an admin fails to warn an IP for vandalism before blocking, s/he hasn't violated the blocking policy. The word "should" does not mean "must". Will ^(talk) 17:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Agreed. The fact that you were not warned prior to each of your violations does not negate the fact that you have violated the Wikipedia:Deletion Policy official guidelines. Your responsibility as part of building an encyclopedia is to look at articles that you just don't like and to see ways in which the issues you see can be addressed without deletion. Running a laundry list of articles up for deletion and failing to make any effort to determine notability or seek improvement in the articles is disruptive and a clear violation of policy. Alansohn 17:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
            • The point I'm making is that the alternatives are not compulsory before I list for AFD. Also, it's not just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I literally plugged in the phrase "studio album - Wikipedia" into Google and AFD'd any inadequately sourced albums. Look at the article for In Rainbows, Radiohead's new album. Up until about 12:10am today, that was an untitled album page. The difference is that that has multiple sources, and this page doesn't. Unless independent notability can be sufficiently established or the album is verified to be due for release within a month (e.g. Britney Spears's fifth studio album), we shouldn't have "untitled album" pages. Will ^(talk) 17:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It doesn't matter what the article looked like. When you are nominating something for deletion, you are saying that you have done research and the topic has no available references on the Internet. If the article needed references or needed cleanup, it would have taken less time to do the research or clean up the article. Or you could have added a tag to the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Usually "X's nth studio album" articles are in violation of WP:Crystal because the articles tend to be speculative, lacking in content and, most importantly, lacking in independent references. In this case however, an album has been confirmed by the studio, references exist about it and it is certainly in production. Therefore it is a notable album by a notable artist - it simply doesn't have a name yet. (The article must, of course, be renamed when a title is announced). A1octopus 11:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

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.