Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spirit In the Dark

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 keep. The references in the article are what are saving this from WP:CRYSTAL. Iff this album is never released, (highly unlikely), then it can be renominated at that time. Consensus right now is to keep. I am also renaming this to Spirit in the Dark (Lindsay Lohan album), and I'm renaming the Franklin album to [[Spirit in the Dark (Aretha Franklin album}]]. Spirit in the Dark will now be a disambiguation page. All of these changes can of course be removed/reverted if the Lohan album never goes beyond the (sourced, reliable) speculative stage. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Spirit In the Dark

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Spirit In the Dark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
  • Housekeeping note I didn't mess with the title to avoid screwing up the AFD, but there is a perfectly notable Aretha Franklin article at Spirit in the Dark, the correct capitalization for this thing. Whatever happens to the Lindsay Lohan article, Spirit In the Dark should be a redirect to Spirit in the Dark, and, if kept, the Lohan article should get a name like Spirit in the Dark (Lindsay Lohan album). I certainly hope that no one will claim that Lindsay Lohan should take priority over Aretha Franklin.
    Kww (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:V, WP:CRYSTAL, and (so far) WP:NM. Ward3001 (talk) 02:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:CRYSTAL does not just apply to "unverifiable speculation". An example of when it would not apply would be a statement that Barack Obama will be nominated for President of the USA. That's a certainty barring any disastrous events. But there are a number of cases of films or albums being "in the can" but delayed signicantly for various reasons, not the least of which is unreliability of the principal players. WP:CRYSTAL stipulates that an event must be "almost certain to take place". Lohan's past behavior raises serious doubts that release of the album is almost certain any time soon. Ward3001 (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Release" and "Complete" are two different things. Lohan's reliability, or lack thereof, effects the "completed" part of the album far more then it effects the "released" part of the album. But even assuming that the release of the album is not 100%, Crystal still doesn't apply. Crystal concerns only unverifiable speculation. Speculation that is verifiable does not come under WP:CRYSTAL. The level of certainty of the future release has little to do with a WP:CRYSTAL analysis. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Efe (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This nomination appears to have been made in bad faith as some sort of vendetta against Lindsay Lohan. The article does not violate WP:CRYSTAL as it is supported by a verifiable source. Speculating that the album will not be released does violate WP:CRYSTAL since such speculation appear to stem from mere prejudice and not any verifiable source.--Bardin (talk) 05:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your mindreading skills are off today, Bardin. I have no vendetta against Lindsay Lohan, despite your brazen, bad faith, POV assumptions. I think she's a great actress and singer and own several of her films and songs. But the article does, in fact, violate WP:CRYSTAL. So let me suggest you examine your own biases here. Ward3001 (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlike you, I do not listen to Lindsay Lohan. I'm a fan of heavy metal music - as my edits on wikipedia can testify - and as a general rule of thumb, metal fans tend not to listen to Lohan's music. So despite your suggestion, I have no bias to speak of. You are the one that raised the issue of Lohan's reliability or lack thereof, an issue that has absolutely no relevance to any of wikipedia's policies or guidelines. There is a reliable source verifying the information here and yet you dare question a source such as the Rolling Stones based on ... what? Your subjective perception of Lohan's reliability based on her past behavior? I'm sorry but I fail to see how that rationale is anything other than mere prejudice. Apparently, I'm not the only person here who thinks so either. By all means correct me if you can by pointing out the wikipedia policy or guideline that indicates how such a subjective and personal perception of an anonymous wikipedia editor on the reliability of some entertainer is a valid ground to argue for deletion of an article that is actually supported by a verifiable source in the form of a well known and regarded mainstream publication. --Bardin (talk) 06:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "verifiable source" does not present a case that release of the album is "almost certain". That's more than "valid ground to argue for deletion". Your "keep" argument is based on your subjective inferences that take a giant leap from the RS article stating that it's scheduled for release to your conclusion that it is almost certain to be released. And regardless of whether you listen to metal or I listen to Lohan or someone else listens to opera, Lohan's reliability is a relevant issue to the question of "almost certain" and does not inherently reflect any bias. And how do you propose that anyone evaluate her reliability other than from her past behavior? Maybe you've come up with a way to determine reliability by looking into the future, but I'm afraid I don't trust your clairvoyant skills any more than I do your mindreading skills. I'll stick with past behavior. Ward3001 (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I asked you to point out where in all of wikipedia's many policies and guidelines is there any indication that the subjective and personal perception of an anonymous wikipedia editor on the reliability of some entertainer is a valid ground to argue for deletion of an article that is actually supported by a verifiable source in the form of a well known and regarded mainstream publication. Unsurprisingly, you have not been able to point out such a policy or guideline. You can reiterate over and over again that your perception of her reliability is somehow and bizarrely relevant but repetition is simply not convincing. --Bardin (talk) 06:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And as far as the verifiable source is concern, there is no doubt expressed in the rather definite sentence "the song is due to hit radio in September, which will be followed by the album’s release in November." The only doubt that exist is in your own mind. --Bardin (talk) 06:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may be "no doubt" in RS's sentence that RS has been told that the album is scheduled for release in September, but that is far from a convincing argument that it is almost certain to be released. When Harry Truman was elected President of the USA major newspapers reported that his opponent won, but that didn't make it almost certain. The fact that a source is "verifiable" (i.e., others can read it) does not make the information given to that source factual or "almost certain".Ward3001 (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't need a policy or guideline about my "subjective and personal perception" about Lohan's reliability any more than you need one that what Rolling Stone has been told and what, in fact, will happen are "almost certain" to be the same. You judge what Lohan's handlers is telling RS to be "almost certain". I disagree. I judge Lohan's reliability to be questionable. You disagree. That's why we're having this discussion, to determine the will of the Wikipedia community. Discussion is appropriate. Trying to bulldoze your opinion by slinging around false accusations of bad faith is not. Express your opinion on the issue. Don't accuse an editor of bad faith because he disagrees with your opinion. Ward3001 (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. But, do not be subjective. --Efe (talk) 08:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is an article about an album. Why should it be deleted? How is this any different from the articles about her other albums? Sure the article barely has anything in it, but as time progress, more info will be added.

You all are just saying to delete ths article because you don't like Lindsay, but you wouldn't be saying delete if this was about an artist you like! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JYoung3 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: Keep. Seems enough reliable information that it is worth keeping. But definite rename. No source citing this as the title, and even if there were, it would need to be disambiguated. Even official myspace refers to album as "New album coming this Fall". Also, now that a single has finally been released it would seem pointless to delete only to recreate in a matter of weeks when everyone is happy there is enough info. - EstoyAquí(t • c • e) 17:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - without a tracklisting and a release date, this fails WP:CRYSTAL --T-rex 14:31, 3 July 2008 (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/Spirit_In_the_Dark&oldid=1138784427"