Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Thousand Suns (2nd nomination)

Add links
Source: 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, as things changed during the debate. Rich Farmbrough, 18:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

A Thousand Suns

AfDs for this article:
A Thousand Suns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article creation is premature, as on now the article fails

WP:HAMMER. Article should be at minimum redirected. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 19:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

"If the name and track order of a future album are not yet known, the album is very likely to have its page deleted from Wikipedia" Is there a tracklisting? Nope. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 20:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it says "name and track order". Only if both of those are unknown does WP:HAMMER, as written, apply. Powers T 00:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesnt. It clearly says both, name and track order. Even if there is only one, it still fails hammer. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 00:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I can see how it might be interpreted either way. If it said "If the name and track order together are not yet known", then I would agree with your interpretation. I interpret it as "If the name is not yet known and the track order is not yet known." In that case, either one being known invalidates the clause. Powers T 11:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hammer is a strongly used guideline, its not set in stone but it is something good to go by. Regarding the sourcing, it only contains three references, the personal should not even be included considering the album hasnt been released so thats complete
WP:OR. And the only references used in the article are regarding the lead single and release date. So how is that considered good referencing? As for the article itself its not notable enough yet, that is why i propose deletion until more information becomes available. (I would support an incubation) (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 21:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
HAMMER is a guideline regarding albums for which little to no information is known, articles that receive titles like Somebands Fourth Studio Album. Here, we have sourced information regarding the title, a producer, and recording information. Which is enough, at least in my opinion, to allow a basic stub on the topic. A redirect is at least feasible until more information is released. However, since this actually *is* the album title, deletion shouldn't be on the table, as its a reasonable search topic, and once more information is released, it would be preferable to simply undo the redirect and add the new information, as opposed to creating a new article from scratch. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
As the nominator and I have both suggested, incubation would allow the article to be developed outside of the namespace until the album's track listing is verified. Until we get the track listing, this is a crystal ball. Cliff smith talk 16:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HAMMER is neither policy nor guideline, but an essay which is often cited in lieu of actually checking whether an article subject meets the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
The artist's article already has information about this album. Albums get advance stand-alone articles in rare cases, but since the amount of verifiable and properly referenced information about this one at present is indeed stub-class, this is not such a case. Incubation would mean that it wouldn't have to be created from scratch.
As a separate note, this article was deleted less than a fortnight ago—
tagged for speedy deletion as a page that was previously deleted via a deletion discussion. I don't know if that applies anymore, but there still is not enough information about this album for it to have a stand-alone article quite yet. Cliff smith talk 17:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep. Clearly satisfies the GNG; with the official announcement, the basis for the previous AFD outcome is no longer applicable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does not pass
it cannot be presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article yet. It's already included at the artist's article, which is where it belongs until we get the track listing. Cliff smith talk 17:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
That doesn't make a shred of sense. It satisfies the GNG directly (which means it passes NALBUM); WP:CRYSTAL clearly doesn't apply. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay look, we do know the title and release date, so maybe it's not quite a WP:CRYSTAL violation as well, but it still does not pass WP:NALBUM because the necessary trifecta, as it were, of title and release date and track listing is incomplete. Plain and simple. Just because a subject has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources does not guarantee that a subject is appropriate for inclusion in a stand-alone article. A Thousand Suns is already included at Linkin Park—basically everything here was already there—which makes this article redundant at least, for the time being. I just don't think that a stub's worth of information about this future album is enough to justify keeping it in the namespace right now. As I suggested already, we can easily incubate this until we get the track listing. Would you be opposed to that? Cliff smith talk 20:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. That's implicit in my keep !vote, close to explicit. It meets the GNG and there's enough information to write a coherent article. Temporary deletion is a waste of effort, not unlike this tendentious argument. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't
WP:NALBUM an augment to the GNG? If that were the case then yes, it seems the most efficient course of action (seeing as more information should be released somewhat in the near-future) that a temporary redirect and incubation of the article makes sense. If NALBUM is not an augment and GNG overrides NALBUM in this case, then possibly the article will stay as it is. Besides, if an article first satisfies the GNG before any other specifics on notability, it seems slightly pointless to have the sub-policies in place. A complete deletion, though, seems a little too much. Garfield1675 (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
As far as I know, all the subject-specific notability guidelines, like NALBUM and NFF, are indeed augments to the GNG. I mean, it's not as though there haven't been or aren't cases where albums get advance articles, this just doesn't appear to be one. And I agree that complete deletion would be too much. Even the nominator would support an incubation. Cliff smith talk 16:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we just leave the page, I don't know why you all have your dicks hard about deleting it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.254.51 (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly a compelling argument... ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 18:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y 67.241.254.51 (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please either contribute to the conversation at hand or step away, but either way, cease your
AIV. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 01:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep, as stub-- As of 22 July 2010, the official Linkin Park website [1] is now a webpage promoting the album and the cover artwork appears have been released. I suppose that doesn't necessarily mean that the article has becomes acceptable, but with the title, release date, and album artwork released, and the lead single announced, there certainly appears to be plenty of information about the album. I would also suggest that if there is a way to add this without it being personal research, it would be useful to describe how the album artwork was revealed-- pixel-by-pixel via a TwitterBot. But at the very least, I would think the best course of action would be to mark the article as a stub, and wait to see how much more information about the album becomes available over the next few weeks as the lead single is released. 75.23.67.151 (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
small note -- marked as a music-class stub article. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 22:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Delete – There have been enough sources and news articles published since 2008 detailing the writing and recording process of A Thousand Suns. It's easily within reach to create a detailed multi-paragraph section on this topic. If someone were to do this soon, I would vote keep. If not, then this article should redirect to Linkin Park#A Thousand Suns (2008—present) where such information has already been written. Either way, the title has been officially confirmed so there is no reason to fully scrap the article with a deletion (hence the unconventional "Not Delete" vote). Fezmar9 (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - completely agree with Fezmar9, the album now has cover art, name, release date AND now tracking list, beside all the data concerning the development of the album, and the proximity of the release of the catalyst.män-et-arms (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A_Thousand_Suns_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1072978960"