Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unreleased Coldplay songs

Add links
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 delete. This is an example of why AfD is not a vote. Let's see here: the discussion on Coldplay Expert's name is irrelevant to the article's merits; it doesn't really matter. Anyways, the keep arguments seem to be: 1) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - The reason that other artists' unreleased songs pages exist is that they are backed by reliable sources. (Or, should they really be deleted because they're not actually notable? As you can see, other pages matter very little. This does not mean that the existence of other stuff makes this non-notable, but rather that it fails to make it notable per se.) 2) WP:EFFORT - WP:POTENTIAL is invoked when an article is in terrible condition but is about a notable subject. Many keep !votes saying that the article needs work have failed to, in addition, demonstrate how the subject is notable. 3) WP:ONLYESSAY - Often, people cite essays because they sum up their arguments well. It is true that violating WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:INHERITED are not reasons for deletion; however, reliable sources have not been found. 4) The sources provided by Coldplay Expert have been refuted successfully by Deserted Cities at the end. Note, however, that I am willing to userfy the article if someone wishes to continue working on it and is able to really find reliable sources to support its notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of unreleased Coldplay songs

[edit]
List of unreleased Coldplay songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although it's obvious that Coldplay is notable, this article isn't, as I feel it violates WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:INHERITED. And although the article has twelve sources, only one (the eleventh source) is slightly reliable; the twelfth source doesn't mention what's stated in the article, and the other ten are linked to WikiColdplay, an unsourced wiki about the band. It also doesn't help that the article was created by User:Coldplay Expert. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 21:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It also doesn't help that the article was created by User:Coldplay Expert. What difference does that make? - just so long as he lives up to what the name suggests. The article is notable enough and Coldplay are a band of whom we do know a lot about songs they haven't released. I think perhaps the article needs a bit of refinement some how and to be as comprehensive as possible. However, it's a good idea for an article and shouldn't be dismissed just because it's the first of its kind. Much more needs to be written about the Coldplay songs on here as not even all of the singles have pages or any amount of information written about them. Officially Mr X (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that a name like that might make other users wonder just how neutral his/her edits will be. And the article being "the first of its kind" (where's the proof of that?) isn't what I stated as the reason for deletion. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 21:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL, how dare you say that my edits are not neutral. The only thing that I have edited so far is coldplay articles because I like them. Im not some fanboy or something like that OK? and do you know where I got the idea from? Unreleased Pink Floyd. That article has only 4 sources. Look I tried my best and If you and everyone else thinks that this is not satifactory then Ill take it back and work on it some more OK? But that comment about me not being neutral is a lie. I do admit that this article needs some work and Ill will try my hardest to keep this page up and running with reliable resources. Think about all of the other articles when they were first created. They are small and may only have a few sources. This is no exeption. In fact the reason that I made it up is because I thought to myself "hmm, I have no idea what the song Idot is or A Ghost, I know ill make my own article on it." I am begging you to please reconsider your desision to get rid of this article.--Coldplay Expert (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, ALL of my edits are not for the good of Coldplay, its for the ggod of wikipedia and the people who are curiopus about this subjectMy edits on Coldplay are actually usefull and contain sources unlike other people like guitarherochristopher. I try my hardest to make sure that all of my edits are up to wiki's standards. (trust me i learned the hard way!)--Coldplay Expert (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You implied that my edits are not neutral. And i belive that you are a member of the "Others" that you said might think that im not neutral. I never said that this article is mine. EVER OK? and further more, I would defend this article even if you made it. I belive that this article is a good idea and if there is an entire article on Pink Floyd unreleased songs then there should be one on Coldplay. After all we do know a considerable amount of info on them. (whether or not it is on this article is up for debate). yes i know that this needs work but the overal idea of this article is a good one and deserves a chance. Yes Other stuff does exist--Coldplay Expert (talk) 00:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Solely due to the fact that other artists have got their own "X Unreleased" pages (or similar). EDIT: Although it doesn't make any difference, I want to change my vote to a full keep. - И i m b u s a n i a talk 07:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's good value information for an article. And by the way I've come across other editors who seem to work in the same way as THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL and believe me you are hardly ever right although you put your points across in a very 'falsely authoritive' way. That is all. Officially Mr X (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The idea is there, it just needs to be worked on a little bit.--Orangesodakid (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article is in its infancy and needs a ton of more work but over all it is s good idea. And by the way, Darrenhusted I take offence to what you said. It isnt crap. Its just an article that needs more attention.--Coldplay Expert (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is offensive then take it up here. And if it needs work then userfy it and bring out out of the sandbox when it is fully formed, mainspace is not a sandbox. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok here's some sources

Bucket For a Crown-[1]

Minning on the Moon/The Fall of Man/Bucket For a Crown-[2]

And this one could be used for some of the songs that have never been heard [3] --Coldplay Expert (talk) 00:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? that would be great! but I cant seem to add any sources to the article can someone else. One more thing, why does the wikicoldplay stuff need to be thrown away...it has alot of info for sone of the songs.--Coldplay Expert (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is because it is a fan site, as well as a wiki, and these can't be trusted as much as verified sources such as news and magazine articles, written by professional writers and journalists. Fan sites and wikis can be added to by anyone in any country with little or no knowledge of the topic. They may be reliable, but it's not worth the risk of getting information wrong by citing an unreliable or incorrect sources. See WP:FANSITE, No. 11 and 12. - И i m b u s a n i a talk 11:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While there are still some issues with referencing its clear that this can become a good standard article on a notable topic Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article's original author has indicated that there are reliable sources available, and I'm willing to give him a chance to add them. This is a viable article subject. Patience is needed while sources can be located. Additionally, I'm uncomfortable with the tone of this nomination. First, an article cannot "[violate] WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:INHERITED" since, as essays, they are no more binding upon the community than an op-ed in The New York Times. Second, I don't like the implication that Coldplay Expert's contributions "don't help" solely because of his name. I'm a fan of the band U2. I've seen them in concert twice. And I'd hope that if I edited under the username "U2 Fan", my contributions would be just as valued as they are under my current username. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)\[reply]

So has a concensus been reached yet? By the way thanks Hemlock Martinis--Coldplay Expert (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD discussions generally run for seven days to give time for a consensus to be reached. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright so on the 7th a consensus sould be reached.--Coldplay Expert (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither are most of the List of unreleased Pink Floyd songs but we still have them.--Coldplay Expert (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 17:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 17:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How in the world does :WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS help you or even hurt my argument? Also, I belive that you and Darrenhusted are the only people opposing the existance of this article now. It it obviously a good idea and im pretty sure that every source (with the exeption of wikicoldplay) is reliable. Once again Keep--Coldplay Expert (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because you can't simply say "band x has an article on unreleased songs, so band y should have one too". And I still support deletion too, per all the points mentioned above. Deserted Cities 21:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does this article lack reliable sources? With the exeption of wikicoldplay, I think that this article has pretty reliable ones.--Coldplay Expert (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well Coldplayzone.it is a fansite, so its out as well. The Coldplay site doesn't count either, as the sources need to be independent of the subject. So your left with a blog on eonline, and contact music, which also seems to be a blog. Try looking for stuff on rolling stone or spin, that's what you should aim for. Deserted Cities 01:16, 9 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_unreleased_Coldplay_songs&oldid=1138027391"