Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 in heavy metal music

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. Flowerparty^☀ 00:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2010 in heavy metal music

This article is discussing 2010 in music in July of 2009 - a clear violation of

WP:CRYSTAL. Intelligentsium 17:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete all the way up to 11, with no issue of being re-created in a few months time once some more solid information is available. Lugnuts (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.
WP:CRYSTAL. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - I've added a bunch more expected releases, making the article more significant. It also doesn't actually violate WP:CRYSTAL. Crystal says, "All 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." - Well, all releases here are sourced, and the subject matter certainly would merit an article had it already happened. If you're going to use that guideline as a basis for deletion, please outline clearly how it actually violates it. 86.129.194.78 (talk) 10:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added
Korn's ninth studio album to the listKMFDM FAN ^(talk!
)

Delete -
WP:CRYSTAL all the way. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep How is it WP:CRYSTAL when it has reliable sources? KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 21:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though 2010 is six months away from now, there are many bands planning their own new releases for next year.
Mr. Metal Head (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, as far as it is properly sourced it does not violate
WP:CRYSTAL. Mushroom (Talk) 23:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - Some users (i.e. those envoking crystal for delete) should really READ policies before they try to enforce them... 81.155.114.171 (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read it. I just happen to disagree. Have you read
WP:AGF? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Yep. Have you? I'm not assuming bad faith (i.e. intent to disrupt or cause harm). I'm assuming that if you feel this "clearly violates WP:CRYSTAL" then you probably haven't read it. And certainly if you give no explanation as to WHY it violates it, then that is the logical assumption. 81.155.114.171 (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think the title of the article is the issue here. If it were "2010 Heavy Metal Album Releases" (or something similar) I would have no problem with it fitting into the "If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." section of the
WP:CRYSTAL section. As the wording stands right now the page is open to all sorts of additional information...even if it's not there right now. Sabiona (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm with you on that. I would move it, but I think since the article is in an AfD debate it would be best to get the opinions of other people first. KMFDM FAN ⁽talk!) 22:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that particular bit mentions being about specific events. The events given (so far indeed only releases) are well-documented. But this is just the next in a whole series of "X year in heavy metal music" articles, so it is open to other things (events, reformations, disbandments, etc), but this has always been the case. We don't have any of those right now, but we do have plenty of expected releases. Anyway, to me I think it's fine. The title is open to more, but it will have to be soon enough, and for what it is now there are sources. 87.194.171.224 (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Does not appear to violate
WP:CRYSTAL as the article stands right now. Rlendog (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - It has reliable sources cited, and isn't speculating. Brian Reading (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One week old now: 4 "delete"s, 6 "keep"s (and with more reasoning behind them). Time to close? 86.146.158.22 (talk) 10:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.