Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 New Switchfoot 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

2008 New Switchfoot Album

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL while there are rumours to that indicate that a new album may be in the works. This is speculation without a title, release date or track listing --T-rex 15:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete A lot can change in almost a year. All dates are only tentative. It's only in the early stages of planning. It should be deleted until more information has been confirmed. Tim meh  !  15:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom; to be recreated when something is actually known about the album. Keeper  |   76  15:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom, little information is currently known and will probably change. -  Milk's   Favorite   Cookie  15:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Dont Delete per nom, Why does Weezer's sixth album have an article? It's all "speculation" as well... there is no track listing, only a producer named, and a few rumored songs. And when information changes, it can easily be edited on the article. I also said in the article discussion, that it will be moved/merged when the title is known. And to answer T-rex, it has already been confirmed they will be making a new record this Spring. I can give you interviews and other related articles confirming this fact. Dont delete. Joberooni (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The Switchfoot article has this information and that is the appropriate place for it until such time as we at least have a title. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, look at the Weezer article. They're new album has no official title yet, and is going under the name "Album Six." Why is it so wrong to have an article about the new Switchfoot record, that has been confirmed by the band themselves, and has some interesting, pertinent information already on it? again, please don't delete. Joberooni (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete until anything is confirmed about this album (say, its name and track listing). Too soon for an article. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, read my responses... thanks.
 * Delete. At present, this is just speculation. That a band is working on releasing a new album should come as a surprise to nobody, and neither should the expectation that the release will come about 2 years after their previous one. Comparisons to any other band's as-yet-untitled album are largely irrelevant, since the existence of other articles has no bearing on the existence of any one particular article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable upcoming album. It appears to be quite confirmed and not speculation. Everyking (talk) 07:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources in fact say nothing beyond the fact that it will be released on their independent label (which seems unsurprising, since that's the label they're on) and that it might be "more acoustic AND more electronic" (which sounds as though it's still in the formative stages). Nothing of any conrete nature - bar the label information, which could just as easily be located on the band's article - is confirmed at present. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * and so the article is now deemed uneducational? Not so. It is the beginning a of a record, in the early developmental stages, that sometimes provide the most intrigue and excitement, and will be very interesting in the future when people look back on the record. Joberooni (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Uneducational" doesn't enter into it. "Encyclopedic" or "Unencyclopedic" is what we're talking about here. If the early developmental stages of this or any other record turn out to be significant later on in the piece, there's nothing to prevent the information being included in the article then. At present, all we know is that the band is working on a new album (not overly surprising, since they're an active band) which will be released on the label they're currently on (again, not surprising). Nothing else meaningful or encyclopedic is present, and that which is, probably is neither meaningful nor encyclopedic. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked, "encyclopedic" means quite frankly that it is intended to educate and make known things to the people. So what's the point of deleting an article if it's going to end up being put up again? And the article features some song possibilities and titles, and links to outside sources that confirm them, and is actually very encyclopedic. Not everybody knows this, and having an article that pulls together all the loose pieces is a great way for casual readers to stay updated and informed on the article. Wikipedia has options to edit things for a reason... and that is because things change. So once more is known, the article will become more and more educational. And as per wikipedia policy, you can merge/move articles... you dont necessarily have to delete articles. So why delete this one? Joberooni (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To me, "encyclopedic" means "describing something which should be in an encyclopedia". Given that this article is currently speculation at best, I still fail to see why it should be in an encyclopedia. If the article will be put back up again, then hopefully when it is there'll be some cited and verifiable information about release dates, tracklists and so on. Currently, there's none of this (the proposed song titles are cited to a discussion board, which isn't a reliable source). At present, it's not a case of more needing to be known, it's a case of nothing being known, although obviously that's going to change as things develop. In relation to merging or moving this article, I'm aware that both can be done, but I don't see how that helps. We'd still be dealing with a collection of speculation about a future album, regardless of where it was merged or moved to. I'm advocating deletion because the content itself is a problem. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The point of deleting it is that right now it is not notable. What may or may not happen in the future, can be taken care of in the future. --T-rex 03:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, why not just leave it? It can easily be merged later, and someone wont have to re-write all this information... just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joberooni (talk • contribs) 01:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make sense. As T-rex and I have both pointed out, the problem is that it doesn't pass the relevant criteria at the moment. Therefore, it shouldn't be here. Is there a reason why something which doesn't pass the criteria should be here? Failing that, does this article in fact pass the criteria in a way we haven't thought of? If the answer to either question is "yes", and you can back that up with an argument, then the article could easily be left here. At the moment, the answer to both questions seems to be "no". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.