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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruthless (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums_and_songs: Unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close The album is by a notable artist and comes out in 2 weeks. Mdsummermsw really needs to calm down and stop sending things to to AFD for questionable reasons. Ridernyc (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article does not demonstrate substantial coverage in reliable sources. The artist is certainly notable, but this is about the unreleased album. If/when it is released it will easily pass notability. At the moment, it does not. (Incidentally, please restrict your comments to the topic.) - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It will be released in 2 weeks. Your nominations are increasingly getting more and more pointy Ridernyc (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please keep your comments on topic. If you take issue with me and/or my actions, discuss them on my talk page or take it to dispute resolution. Thanks. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There doesn't seem to be any real info on the album yet; its AMG listing is blank. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• there are 35,700 google hits on it [1].

Sorry but this is just silly we are going to have a 5 day AFD on it, delete it, then allow it be recreated a week later? Ridernyc (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep A couple of sites can at least verify the track listing, and CDUniverse provides an album cover, so this may just be good enough for now -- nothing seems to violate WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Give it a chance to be released, unreleased albums mean that it was never officially released not something tbr. --Flesh-n-Bone 16:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - AMG link —Torc. ^(Talk.) 22:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A blank page (except for the title and catalog number) certainly does not amount to substantial coverage. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to. All it has to do is confirm that the album exists and will be released. The fact that it's a release by a notable artist establishes notability. It's not "unreleased", it's 'scheduled for release at a future date'. "Unreleased" refers to albums like Smile (Beach Boys album), not albums confirmed for a release date one week from today. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 19:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It has not been released, so it's un+released. Beyond Aston was "going-to-be-released-I-swear", so were Physical Education, Lovechild, etc. One Day at a Time will be out any day now... Yes, "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." This, at present, is not an "officially released album". Right now, the article says "Released: March 4, 2008". Should we add <ref>Crystal ball, accessed 26 February 2008.</ref>? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're misreading the guideline and misinterpreting WP:CRYSTAL. "Unreleased" is a reference back to bootlegs, demos, etc., not to scheduled upcoming releases, hence the use of a semi-colon in that sentence. Pointing out tense problems in the infobox is a non-argument; the box is not dynamically created and cannot be easily changed. The allowance for future albums has been overwhelmingly endorsed, and WP:CRYSTAL forbids only unsourced speculation, not sourced articles about scheduled future events. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 23:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The debate you reference saved Template:Future_album, with significant notes re articles that are WP:CRYSTAL problems and adding a usage note to the template in that regard. The "tense problem" in the infobox is part of the problem. With no source or caution, it lists the date this album "was" released. The telling point is this: you said, "and WP:CRYSTAL forbids only unsourced speculation, not sourced articles about scheduled future events." Ruthless (album) is, in fact, an unsourced article about a scheduled future event. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you could have sourced this article in less time then it took you to send it to AFD. Ridernyc (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meets notability only because release is imminent. Bands have put out fake or wrong track lists in advance before and Wikipedia is not a directory, music store or any other such thing. Orderinchaos 01:53, 28 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.