Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hellish Mad Rush

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. Cirt (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hellish Mad Rush[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As yet unreleased album so no evidence of notability - fails WP:MUSIC. ukexpat (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination, plus WP:NALBUMS states In a few special cases, an unreleased album may qualify for an advance article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it—for example, Guns 'n Roses' 2008 album Chinese Democracy had an article as early as 2004. However, this only applies to a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects—generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label. This album does not fall into that category! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Obviously, when it's released in October, if it charts then an article would be in order. At the moment, an article is inappropriate. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I seemed over eager here but it is only a few weeks until the album is released and I wanted to make sure it was there to refer to from day one. Deleting now will only necessitate me putting the page back up in October. I have now added referenced links confirming the release by the artists and by the label. -- Gusdeadman (Contact Me, My Contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 18:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: Confirmation of release date is not enough. The album is not yet, and will not be when released, notable as per WP:MUSIC. – ukexpat (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Deleting it now will only necessitate it being added in October if is becomes notable - which generally means getting into an accepted music chart, as per WP:MUSIC. Not every album has an article - incidently, the references you added are from the company's blog (not generally accepted as reliable) and a Myspace page (again, not a reliable source). These are not independent of the band, which is the quality we look for in references. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: But at the moment it is not-notable and we have no reason to believe it will be in the future, hence this is pure crystal ballism. So what if it has to be recreated if it becomes notable at some future time? That's not a reason for keeping it now. – ukexpat (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & . Even if it had been released there is still nothing that shows stand alone notability, mainly because of the huge lack of significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Why the rush? Wikipedia isn't here to advertise your favourite bands albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom and notability threshold identified by WP:NALBUMS. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no need for a hellish mad rush to create an article about an unreleased recording. Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:CRYSTAL. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not-Delete, There is no rush, I just put it up when the information became available. Why the rush to delete it? Why not just give me advice about how to make it better. At the moment it looks to the world like you are saying my article is not cool enough to join your gang. This is also not an advertisement, if it was I would have filled it with opinion and directed the user with a call to action to buy it. This is documentation, it is information. Wikipedia is filled with stuff that most of us have no interest in, but we don't tag it for deletion because of that. This article is useful detail for anybody researching the heyday of British Independent music. Gusdeadman (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Looks to the world like... sounds a bit egotistical to me! You have been told (both here and on a user talk page) what you need to do to make this article one that can be kept - you need to demonstrate notability, specifically Music Notability, and within that, specifically Song, Single and Album Notability. You need to find reliable sources that show that the album is notable. No one has said that it is an advert from what I can see. If there is no rush, then I fail to see why you can't wait until the album has been released and shown to be notable (at the very least, it needs to chart). I'm not sure what you mean about the heydey of British Independent music - 'heyday' refers to A period of success, popularity or power; prime. (Wikttionary definition of heyday) - an album cannot be part of that if it (a) has not been released yet; (b) has not been successful yet. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nothing egotistical, so please don't get personal, I was merely pointing out that as a relative newby this is the impression that new users are likely to gain. Recommending this article for deletion is contrary to Wikipedia's own deletion process that recommtends "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." this has not been followed. I will improve the page as I learn about the necessary attributes but the process is not easy and all the experienced people need to take this into account otherwise it looks "for all the world" ie everyone who is not a wikipedia expert, like bullying or elitism. Whether it is or not is not the point. This is what it looks like.
  
  WRT the use of the word Heyday, the album is retrospective with all the tracks recorded prior to 1991 and so is part of the Heyday referred to in books and documentaries about the Independent record movement. I should not have to fight about every word I use. Ask me questions about the article but please leave your judgements until you have all the information. Gusdeadman (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Firstly, I apologise if it sounded like a personal attack. It was merely an observation! Yes, their first three singles were recorded in the late 80s - but as nothing happened since then, I do not feel that that they are part of any heyday, and your use of the word seemed inappropriate.
  - Yes, you are right - if the article can be improved we should help with that - however, there are no reliable, independent sources of information about this album, or indeed the band (that's why the Band's article is also up for deletion). The band released 3 singles in the late 80s, none of which appear to have charted from what I can find. This is their first album. The facts about the band on their article are all unsourced - their is no indication that the band or the album are notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Yes, we will help a newbie (many of us have helped newbies find reliable sources for their articles) - but, while I can't speak for any one else here, I do know that I searched for sources of informey ation that would enable the article to be kept - I did a quick search (about 10 mins) before putting delete above, and have looked again (in more depth) since. The guidelines on deletion do not say that a newbie creating an article is given extra leeway. I did the same with this article as I would with an article nominated for deletion by an editor who has been editing for 8 years with a million edits - I look for reliable sources of information about the subject. For this article, I have looked, and found nothing.
  - Our job here is to create an authoritative, reliable encyclopedia, following the criteria for inclusion. If a newbie feels that we are being unfair when we nominate their newly created article for deletion, then I am sorry - butno where does the policy say "ignore it if a newbie creates an article which does not meet the criteria and if there are no reliable sources to corroborate what is in the article". Personally, I have helped a few editors to find references for their articles, even when the article initially looked as if it might not be notable. It doesn't matter if I know a lot about the subject matter or not - if sources are available, as long as I know enough about the subject (even if it's only from the article itself), I can often find sources (newspapers, journals, scholarly works) which will back up the information. If you can find such sources to show that the band, their singles and their unreleased album are notable, then that would be brilliant - as long as they are what Wikipedia defines as reliable sources. Find them, I'll help you add them to the article to show notability. I'll change my recommendation to keep. But until you provide them (as I couldn't find them myself), I'll hold you to the same standard as any other editor, whether they have 1, 100, 10000 or a million edits. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-notable album by a non-notable band. Joe Chill (talk) 23:03, 11 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.