Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nostradamus (album)
From 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 keep. Nomination was withdrawn, and despite a significant number of initial WP:CRYSTAL delete !votes, I am satisfied the article has been adequately referenced for a forthcoming album. Canley (talk) 11:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Nostradamus (album)
Unreleased album (crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage and not much in the way of references. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums, may fail WP:V. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 00:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 00:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Not even Nostradamus can help us predict what tracks will be on this album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable. Renee (talk) 01:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete ^ Can always be remade once notable. Mm40 (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete WP:CRYSTAL Burner0718 JibbaJabba! 02:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Kimu 03:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 08:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Strong keep It already is notable as it is a notable future album by a notable band, and it is not crystal balling as it has been reported by media and it is certain to take place. Did you guys even read the policies you are quoting?--E tac (talk) 10:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I only see one (improperly cited) reference, and that's an interview with the guitarist where he says they've recorded a bunch of stuff for an upcoming album. There's no source showing it's actually scheduled for release. Also, I don't see any notability claimed in the article; remember—notability is not inherited. Just because the band putting out the album is notable, that doesn't impart notability onto the album. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 12:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Response Yes when it comes to albums notability is generally inherited if the artist themselves are notable. Just because the article doesn't have a lot of sources right now does nothing to diminish it's notability, which is why I tagged it as unrefferenced to see if we can help get some on here. Funny that wasn't done as an attempt to improve the article Before it was put up for deletion.--E tac (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment No, it's not. WP:MUSIC#Albums says an album by a notable artist "may" be notable, not "is". And please assume good faith—there's nothing "funny" going on here. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 21:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment How did I not assume good faith, I just thought it was odd and counterproductive to put something up for deletion rather than attempt to improve it first. The policy on albums didn't used to be worded this way which is now far to subjective, but even as it stands how is this particular future album not notable?--E tac (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment By saying it was "funny" and implying that I should have tagged it. The album policy has been like that since at least last summer. The question is not how is it not notable but how is it notable. I'm sure once it's out there will be plenty of media attention to assert notability but it's a little to early for any significant coverage. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 01:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment If an album needs to be released to have an article then why do we have the "future album" tag available.--E tac (talk) 06:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Two examples of future albums with significant media coverage: Metallica's ninth studio album and Eminem's fifth studio album. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 09:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment So the level of media coverage is the only factor that determines notability? Notability does not equal popularity. Are you prepared to go through all 61,400 of these links? Once you do so then you can say there is not enough coverage or source information.--E tac (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Media coverage ≠ popularity. I don't see any end in sight to this discussion so I'll just leave it to the closing admin to decide. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 13:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment You know what I mean, Metallica and Eminem are much more popular than Judas Priest with mainstream audiences so of course there is going to be more media coverage on their upcoming albums. That however does not make this album any less notable to this encyclopedia.--E tac (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Media coverage ≠ popularity. I don't see any end in sight to this discussion so I'll just leave it to the closing admin to decide. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 13:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment So the level of media coverage is the only factor that determines notability? Notability does not equal popularity. Are you prepared to go through all 61,400 of these links? Once you do so then you can say there is not enough coverage or source information.--E tac (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Two examples of future albums with significant media coverage: Metallica's ninth studio album and Eminem's fifth studio album. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 09:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment If an album needs to be released to have an article then why do we have the "future album" tag available.--E tac (talk) 06:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment By saying it was "funny" and implying that I should have tagged it. The album policy has been like that since at least last summer. The question is not how is it not notable but how is it notable. I'm sure once it's out there will be plenty of media attention to assert notability but it's a little to early for any significant coverage. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 01:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment How did I not assume good faith, I just thought it was odd and counterproductive to put something up for deletion rather than attempt to improve it first. The policy on albums didn't used to be worded this way which is now far to subjective, but even as it stands how is this particular future album not notable?--E tac (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment No, it's not. WP:MUSIC#Albums says an album by a notable artist "may" be notable, not "is". And please assume good faith—there's nothing "funny" going on here. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 21:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Response Yes when it comes to albums notability is generally inherited if the artist themselves are notable. Just because the article doesn't have a lot of sources right now does nothing to diminish it's notability, which is why I tagged it as unrefferenced to see if we can help get some on here. Funny that wasn't done as an attempt to improve the article Before it was put up for deletion.--E tac (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I only see one (improperly cited) reference, and that's an interview with the guitarist where he says they've recorded a bunch of stuff for an upcoming album. There's no source showing it's actually scheduled for release. Also, I don't see any notability claimed in the article; remember—notability is not inherited. Just because the band putting out the album is notable, that doesn't impart notability onto the album. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 12:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete, via aforementioned WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia can not see into the future. A guy in a band saying they did something isn't enough to pass WP:V. CelarnorKeep. I've done my best to improve the article, and I think it's enough to pass now. (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)- Comment What is the purpose of the {{future album}} tag then? And what is enough, does he have to sign his name in blood as well?--E tac (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Reply: {{future album}} is for notable, verifiable music albums that haven't been recorded yet but have received media coverage outside of the band's own announcement that "we're doing some album named x". Essentially, what this amounts to is "Hey guys, we started an album. It's gonna be called Nostradamus." That doesn't meet WP:V. If you find some reliable third-party announcements and information, list them here and I'll remove my !vote. Celarnor (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Could you give an example of such a future album that contained info that wasn't revealed through interviews of the band members?--E tac (talk) 09:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Reply: Eminem's fifth studio album seems to be a good one. Celarnor (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Reply You miss the point. All the info is still coming from interviews and quotes from your publicist and friends and that is even less relevant and verifiable then if they were coming from the artist themself. Instead of the artist saying "Hey guys, we started an album. It's gonna be called Nostradamus." it is like saying "Hey guys, my friends started an album. It's gonna be called Nostradamus." How is that better?--E tac (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Reply: You should read WP:RS to help you understand what constitutes a reliable source. I don't see this going anywhere, so I'll leave it to the closing admin to decide. Cel Talk to me 02:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Reply You miss the point. All the info is still coming from interviews and quotes from your publicist and friends and that is even less relevant and verifiable then if they were coming from the artist themself. Instead of the artist saying "Hey guys, we started an album. It's gonna be called Nostradamus." it is like saying "Hey guys, my friends started an album. It's gonna be called Nostradamus." How is that better?--E tac (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Reply: Eminem's fifth studio album seems to be a good one. Celarnor (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Could you give an example of such a future album that contained info that wasn't revealed through interviews of the band members?--E tac (talk) 09:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Reply: {{future album}} is for notable, verifiable music albums that haven't been recorded yet but have received media coverage outside of the band's own announcement that "we're doing some album named x". Essentially, what this amounts to is "Hey guys, we started an album. It's gonna be called Nostradamus." That doesn't meet WP:V. If you find some reliable third-party announcements and information, list them here and I'll remove my !vote. Celarnor (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment What is the purpose of the {{future album}} tag then? And what is enough, does he have to sign his name in blood as well?--E tac (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 13:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per E tac "...it is certain to take place" = WP:Crystal or I'm the chaos butterfly Plutonium27 (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Have you even read WP:CRYSTAL? It states that "future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" right in the begining.--E tac (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Strong keep Inx272 14:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: WP:JUSTAVOTE. Cel Talk to me 15:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Nomination rescinded Celarnor has added enough references to show notability. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 12:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as meets the Crystal requirements: "articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." The event is verifiable by notable sources, and there will be an article on the album when it's released. SilkTork *YES! 17:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- The nomination has been rescinded after I found some sources. I'd be nice if everyone could review their votes. Celarnor Talk to me 18:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- The closer will take the development of the article into account. If the AfD is closed as Delete you can ask for a Wikipedia:Deletion review. AfDs are not votes, but a discussion to find consensus. SilkTork *YES! 11:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- The nomination has been rescinded after I found some sources. I'd be nice if everyone could review their votes. Celarnor Talk to me 18:46, 18 March 2008 (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.
