Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vice Verses (2nd nomination)

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 Userifying (without redirect) in lieu of deletion per main authors request. Jclemens (talk) 05:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vice Verses

Vice Verses (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)

• I had just gotten permission to recreate the page by another user. These sources are reliable, as they involve the band specifically themselves. I don't understand. Joberooni (talk) 07:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources You need
  reliable, third-party sources for articles, which you presently don't have (and don't really exist). First-hand sources are not strictly forbidden, but discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Working on more third party sources Joberooni (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Secondary sources are appropriate as well. See
  WP:SECONDARY. I know it may seem strange to editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia, but blogs, Twitter, and YouTube are generally considered unreliable sources, unless the article is specifically about the video, tweet, or blog, or officially released by a reliable source. We also have to be very careful when linking to these sites, making sure not to link to intellectual property that may violate copyright. Cindamuse (talk) 00:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Userfy. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.
  WP:CRYSTAL Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. In my opinion, the release of this project is neither notable nor solidified. The Olympics, presidential elections, and the television broadcast of the Academy Awards are pretty much a lock. An article announcing the planned release of a musical project for a year in the future, falls under the policy prohibiting "crystal balls". Anything can happen between now and "summer of 2011", from a change in the title of the project to scrapping the project altogether (which I hope doesn't happen, since I'm a fan). When the CD is released, then proceed with inclusion at that time. In the meantime, userfy the article. Cindamuse (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect per
  WP:NALBUMS: No track listing, no release date, and not enough for a stand-alone article. This should be covered in the artist's article for now. Someone can userfy or incubate if so desired. I'm suggesting redirection because the artist confirmed the title in March. Cliff smith ^talk 16:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment. I agree. I think a redirect is the best option. I should have added that to my comment above. I feel like slapping my forehead with a big "duh". Thanks for posting your comment. Cindamuse (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you must redirect, then I suggest just re-userifying to me and I'll take care of it until we get more concrete sources. Joberooni (talk) 00:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.