Talk:Evanescence EP

BIGWIG!!!
People need to stop saying that the EP was released privately. It was released with Bigwig Enterprises as the label. See the artwork for yourself: http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/2011/002by7.jpg "DISTRIBUTED BY BIGWIG ENTERPRISES" Right there on the bottom! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gyakusetsu (talk • contribs) 15:31, 16 April 2007  (UTC)
 * Hold on a second. My understanding is that Bigwig was not their label, just the company that assisted in the distribution of the early stuff.  None of the work was their copyright, unlike the current material.  AKA, I don't believe label = distributor.  Look at Fallen for example: Wind-up is the label, however it was distributed by BMG Distribution (subsidiary of BMG Entertainment). --  Huntster  T • @ • C 23:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Redirecting, really??
Spending three hours on an article based on fact really sucks after you find it redirecting to the Evanescence page within a 24 hour range. I hardly think it matters whether it was released on a record company or what, the Evanescence EP clearly exists. Everything has been confirmed by the band members and Bigwig Enterprises themselves. There are tons of other extended play articles released by musicians before their success, such as Jordan Sparks, AFI, David Cook, etc. Otherwise, I fathom why the Evanescence EP shouldn't exist. However, Sound Asleep EP and Mystary are understandable, considering they don't have much history (although there are still mysteries hidden within the Sound Asleep EP.) Concluding this long rant, I think all three should have a page, really, because this stuff should be able to be researched. I'm doing a business project on Evanescence right now, and would love to relocate these approved sources onto Wikipedia. 'nuff ramblin'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitefirre (talk • contribs) 21:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * When you "created" the article, all you were simply doing was removing the redirect that was already in place. I can understand how it may be disheartening to have an article reverted after putting hard work into it (it has happened to me, as well), but there were reasons for the redirect.  As you can see by this edit, the article was originally set to redirect citing "Redirecting page...this is and always will be a stub with no potential for expansion."  This reason is a paraphrase of the Wikipedia policy WP:NALBUMS which states "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."  This article was once since then brought "back to life", if you will, and there was no significant improvement on the article to include any additional notability or third-party sources.  Unfortunately, just because the album existed, that does not give it enough notability to have its own article.  There is simply not enough information available to feasibly create a worthy article based on Wikipedia's policies.
 * With that said, you may continue to develop this article in your userspace. If you can develop the article further than its previous states within Wikipedia's notability policies, perhaps then it can be considered for its own article again.  But as of now, there is simply not enough information to include into the article which cannot simply be merged into other Evanescence-related aritlces.  ~ [  Scott M. Howard  ] ~ [  Talk  ]:[  Contribs  ] ~  22:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, Nitefirre, there's http://www.evanescencereference.info, which is a far more complete, but generally unsourced. If you *can* develop a sourced article for this page, that'll be great. Just don't feel discouraged if you can't, since we've tried off-and-on for years :) — Huntster (t @ c) 04:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I just read the policy and I'm glad you're reasonable and understanding. Not a lot of information exists for the article, anyway. And I've seen the Evanescence reference a lot and know it's counted a 'real source.' But at least it's there for fans to read. But thanks for acknowledging my reasons for being a little upset. :)

Strange to correct myself, but I meant know it's "not" a reliable source. Because half of the grammar is improper and the article for "Snow White Queen" actually quotes, "stalker...erm, stalking her," which isn't something I think I'd find in a dictionary or encyclopedia (no offense to who wrote it, but please improve your diction). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitefirre (talk • contribs) 21:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)