Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 in Music


 * 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. PhilKnight (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

2009 in Music

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Who can be sure that what is written in this article is solid fact and not just speculation, it is for that reason I request deletion of this article. Chafford (talk) 08:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete since Wiki isn't a crystal ball. Bidgee (talk) 08:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and resurrect closer to the time (and with a lowercase m). 2009 doesn't even link to it. I checked one EL at random (the Bob Dylan/Jack White album) only to find that they aren't even definitely recording together yet. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete -- crystal ball gazing. - Longhair\talk 09:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:CRYSTAL Radioinfoguy (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:CRYSTAL still applies --T-rex 15:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:CRYSTAL is an overused mantra around here. Crystal does not apply to every single article about a future event. Crystal only applies to unverifiable speculation, which means that verifiable speculation is a valid Wikipedia topic. Therefore, if there are reliable sources that have coverage about speculation is it wrong to apply Crystal to that speculation. If some of the listings in the article don't have sources than removed them, but don't apply Crystal to everything that is upcoming. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 19:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is very little if any reliable sources within the list/article in which WP:CRYSTAL isn't over used since it's just speculation.
 * Keep. I agree WP:CRYSTAL does not apply as the releases and other information here appears to be sourced (and any that aren't sourced can be removed without harming the article. 2009 is only 5 months away, so we're not dealing with undue speculation. If there's a reliable source cited, then the album listed -- whether titled or not -- is scheduled for release. That does not necessarily mean that there is sufficient information yet for individual articles, but for listing in this venue, this is perfectly viable. 23skidoo (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As I've said above it's just poorly sourced speculation which is unlikely to have reliable sources since they would have been used already. Bidgee (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Each and every source is "poor"? I don't think so. There will be music in 2009, so there's gonna be an article 2009 in Music just like there's an article 2008 in music. Why waste time deleting an article that will inevitably be recreated in a few months? Just edit this article and removed all information that is poorly sourced. If most of the article is poorly sourced, than remove most of the article. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well we're in 2008 so why shouldn't there be a 2008 article? 2009 is another story. Sources are from fan sites, forums, artists own site which isn't a third-party source and yes there is 2 or 3 possible reliable sources. Then most songs within the list/article has Untitled which is rather unuseful. Bidgee (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say peep if all the content of the article is removed save a few entries. I would do it myself, if I would know something about music. I know nothing about music, and have no idea which of the sources are reliable and which aren't. The fact that songs are "untitled" should not make a difference. If right now there's informative and sourced information, it should be included. We don't have to know everything about a given subject before adding it to Wikipedia. This encyclopedia is built piecemeal. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * True, there will inevitably be a 2009 in Music article. There will also inevitably be a 2050 in Music article, provided Wikipedia lasts that long. That doesn't mean we should even begin to think about making an article for it. While 2009 may be only 6 months away and 2050 40 years, the perceived inevitability of an article's existence is not justification for its existence. True, Wikipedia is built piecemeal. However, there is a reason that not every piece has its own article. 81.51.232.219 (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  20:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete While this is not a case of WP:CRYSTAL, most of the claims the article makes are un-comfirmed and mostly just speculation. Until more is known about 2009 in Music this article is redundent. Buc (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, sourced speculation is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, and every item in this article cites a source. Whether those sources are reliable or not is another question which should be discussed on the article's talk page, but at least some of the cited sources include Billboard magazine and Forbes. Even if "most of the claims" are just speculation from unreliable sources, there are clearly claims about 2009 releases that can be made from reliable sources. 2009 is less than 6 months away, and artists and producers are now making plans for what they will release in 2009. They are certainly not making plans for what they will release in 2050. Even without consulting this article, I was able to find several verifiable facts from reliable sources about upcoming 2009 album releases: No Doubt (MTV.com), Outkast (MTV.com), Built to Spill (Billboard.com), Lynyrd Skynyrd (Billboard.com), Freebass (Billboard), Dead by Sunrise (RollingStone.com), Amy Winehouse (RollingStone.com), The Shins (RollingStone.com), Franz Ferdinand (RollingStone.com), and Weezer (RollingStone.com). DHowell (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Followup - I've added these to the article. I also tried to move the article to 2009 in music but that name is protected. To the closing admin: If you close this as keep, please unprotect the proper article name and move this article to that name. Thank you. DHowell (talk) 02:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please see also Articles for deletion/2008 in music, where an article which cited far fewer sources than this one was kept, and also a little over 5 months before the beginning of that year. DHowell (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Though not precisely the same, I'm tempted to throw WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS at you. It's not about that article, it's about this article. 81.51.89.187 (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And I'm tempted to throw WP:BASH right back at you. Did you even read the essay you linked to? "The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because 'other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc.' " I believe I made a valid comparison between two, not just similar articles, but two articles which were about exactly the same topic relative to the time they were nominated for deletion. Instead of throwing around links to essays which I've already read, why don't you try telling me why you think the arguments made in 2007 to keep the 2008 article don't apply in 2008 to the 2009 article? I'll tell you why the arguments to delete, the same "crystal ball" arguments being made in this AfD, don't apply: in 2007 they were about an article which was full of unsourced information, all of which was entirely removed before the end of the AfD. This article, on the other hand, cites a source for every single item, as did the "2008 in music" article by the time its AfD was closed as keep. DHowell (talk) 20:54, 24 July 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.