Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conversations (From A Second Story Window Album)

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. Too early for this article, if indeed notable. Some information in the band article would be unexceptionable. BLACKKITE 00:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conversations (From A Second Story Window Album)[edit]

Article as is fails WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL Sting_au Talk 06:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn unreleased album. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Sting_au Talk 06:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, the delete opinion is implied already as you brought this to AfD - no need to vote seperately. Lankiveil (talk) 08:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not voting. AfD is not a vote or haven't you figured that out yet? If I wish to add comments under my nomination I'm quite able to do so. I'm not sure where the precedent for that is though? lol ;-) Sting_au Talk 08:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

still no need to write Delete tho. it's sort of obvious how you feel about since you nominated if for, um, deletion. tomasz. 11:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Disagree... as a closing admin I find it very helpful when the nom is clear as to what they are suggesting should be done. Sometimes the nom wants a merge/redirect, etc. JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i've been told that this is just an "advertisement" in ways, and i disagree. yes it may seem that way, but it provides people with information on what to expect with the band's next album and hopefully they would be able to find more information that i was not able to find. i'm merely trying to start a legit article on the bands next album, and i'm waiting for a track listing to come about so i can add that. it should be about within the next month, considering the band is going to enter the studio, and will be releasing more and more information on the album. i'm hoping you all will understand, and i'm once again terribly sorry for my misdemeanor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guitar freak91 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Don't sweat it; you can remove the {{prod}} if you think the subject is notable. The next step if the original tagger thinks it's non-notable is to bring it to this place for a closer look by the community. Nobody is angry or pissed off at you for it =) Lankiveil (talk) 06:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Response to Lankiveil, ok thanks.. i'm glad that thats all it is.. music is my favorite thing, and i just created the article like an hour ago and wanted to expand upon it in the next couple weeks. its really hard to come by info on underground metal bands though, so i'm like, hoping this doesnt get deleted. lol. thanks dude =)Guitar freak91 (talk) 06:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, No worries. Rather than clutter this page, I've made a few suggestions on your talk page for future reference. Lankiveil (talk) 06:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep, after having a bit of a closer look, From A Second Story Window seems to be a notable band, and there is established precendent that the albums of notable bands are themselves notable. There are also references provided in the article that verify that the album exists and will be released. It could do with a copyedit, but I think it should be kept. Lankiveil (talk) 06:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Still fails the criteria listed for albums at WP:MUSIC per "unreleased albums may not yet be notable without substantial coverage from reliable sources." The article in this AfD says and I quote, "The band has been writing the music expected to be on the album for well over a year" Expected! Not even a tracklist in the article itself! Lets hear some more about this established precedent of yours please. Does it say anything about the albums needing to exist first?. Can you supply a link to this precedent? Your comment of "seems" to be a notable band I find unconvincing. But fair enough the band may be notable, but it's not the band I'm concerned about in this AfD. That may very well become a future AfD. But for now it is the unreleased album I'm saying is not notable (yet). You still haven't addressed your decision to vote keep as far as the notability guidelines at WP:MUSIC read. Or at least my interpretation of the guidelines. Still fails WP:CRYSTAL too. Sting_au Talk 07:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I'm fairly sure that WP:CRYSTAL does not apply here, as the release of the album is almost certain to happen, and the band have been talking about the direction the album is taking across multiple sources. It's borderline as far as WP:MUSIC goes, but in my opinion it falls over the line. Lankiveil (talk) 08:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

you should check the links i left on the nominated article. and their myspace FASSW's Myspace. because they're finished writing. they're heading to the studio, and there WILL BE an album. its really notable. and theres no reason for the actual band's article to become a "future AfD" because thats a very notable article and is kind of BS for you to throw that out there.Guitar freak91 (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm checking the bands page now and it also looks like a candidate for AfD as far as reliable sources goes it fails miserably. Don't panic I'm not going to AfD it. If you're working on that article too I suggest checking the All Music Guide and see if they have a reference to the band? You're obviously very fond and protective of the band. Study up on WP:MUSIC so you know what to look for when sourcing information. Check the "Resources" section there. Sting_au Talk 07:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah well i hate to say it but most of Wikipedia's underground music stuff is a candidate for AfD then because they all have just as much or less of the resources apparently 'needed' on Wiki. if the bands exist and you can tell they do from minor internet sources then that should be it, period. this stuff shouldnt have to go through all this criticism just to exist on the internet. half the stuff on Wikipedia is unreliable anyways, schools dont let kids use it in research projects or anything. but i can tell you all bands that i've edited or albums i've edited exist and the info is 'notable'. and so what if you cant find it on the internet, thats what i dont get. maybe its jut not popular? and if it isnt, that means theres NOT A LOT OF SOURCES. if theres not a lot of internet sources, we should be able to list it as from the actual CD that we've bought. maybe you all should go to your local cd store and see if you cant find any of this stuff, but hey, some of this isnt even sold in Australia or wherever else you may be from. its mostly america. at least this band is, because they're underground music. they dont get Fame and Glory like pop bands or people like celebrities or someone fresh out of American Idol. this stuff that i've added is real and i dont get why Wiki has to be so picky when it comes to that. if at all possible i'd like to speak to the guy who came up with all this process and mumbo jumbo and see what he has to say to all this. its ridiculous.Guitar freak91 (talk) 07:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it wasn't just a "guy" who came up with the mumbo jumbo. Wikipedia policy and guidelines are arrived at through consensus. This is an encyclopedia and as such needs articles to have notability and that notability needs to be referenced correctly. Don't worry about your band. That suggested link I gave you. Did you check it? All Music Guide does reference From A Second Story Window so if I was you I'd go add a reference to the bands article. Sting_au Talk 08:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as crystalline, recreate when out if necessary. tomasz. 11:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to W guice What dont you people get that this IS NOT UNDER CRYSTAL BALL?! my links are very verifiable! just go to the bands main webpage, LISTED on the freakin page! if its not there, i'll add it, and you can see how NOTABLE this is! this is BS that this is put under the "crystal ball" rule. Guitar freak91 (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: It isn't that we don't understand you; we just don't agree with you. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't mean "there's no indication the subject will exist." It means that, to quote "If preparation ... is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." It doesn't look like there's a single source listed that isn't a blogpost cribbed from the same press release. Now yes, you're right in inferring that the unreleased album of a far more famous group than an obscure, underground metal band would have a much easier time passing the verifiability and reliable sources bars, but if you think Wikipedia's rules are too harsh, try taking this to Britannica or Encarta and see if their notability rules are any more generous. Finally, as far as whether an article needs to pass through many hoops in order to "exist on the Internet" ... haven't you sourced that it does already? Ravenswing 09:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to From a Second Story Window. All references are either not reliable (unverified postings to an online bulletin) or not independent. To have its own article, I would want to see independent reputable reviews and sales data, ie. stuff that will be available after it is actually released. As it stands, the article serves to promote an upcoming release, and is therefore an attempt at advertising. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it will not even in production for another week. Bearian (talk) 16:30, 7 January 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.