Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Aston

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. Information about upcoming projects, belongs in the parent article until reliable sources exist for the specific product. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Aston[edit]

Per WP:MUSIC, unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the article he has been working on it since 1996. Come back when it gets released and becomes notable or when it gets adequate coverage as an unreleased album. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:N. Edison (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Edison's comments above. This article appears to be an advertisment for the album. Wikipedia shouldn't be used for that purpose. If the album ever does get released (and quite frankly, I have a funny feeling that this will not be happening for quite some time, if ever), then this article can be restored and edited to look less like an advertisement and more of a discussion of the album/music itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.21.70 (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When you go to the "Bill Ward Official Website" [1], at the "Contact Us" area, you will see that Joe Siegler is listed as the webmaster. Being that he was the author of this article, I believe that a major conflict of interest exists here. This article is no more than an advertisement for an album and an artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.53.196 (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Bill Ward (musician) at the very least. I am going to have to go against everyone here. While I understand the argument that this album isn't notable enough, Bill Ward is certainly quite notable. Therefore, we should include at least some information about this album. --Ixfd64 (talk) 06:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Bill Ward (musician). Just because an album has been in production for a very long period of time does not make information about it useless or irrelevant. I think it's important to note that Bill Ward stated just 2 months ago that it should be done sometime this year, and that media from the album was made available to download and a limited release of another single was available at some point in the past. Seeing as Bill Ward is a pretty notable musician, two tracks from the album have been released in various forms, and the last update was really recent, I think this should stay. TerminX (talk) 06:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bill Ward (musician). I voted a "Delete" (above); However, I think that the best compromise here would be to merge the artcile with Bill Ward (musician). If the album is ever released, then a new article could be created.--67.100.21.70 (talk) 17:35, 18 February 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.