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  keep.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

2009 in music

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

If ever there was an article that breaks WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V in so many ways, this is it. A scan of the refs - particularly ones for releases with no exact date - shows blog entries (unreliable sources) and entries such as "album being worked on, hopefully released soon". One ref I saw is even dated 2007 suggesting a release by the end of that year. WP:NOT also applies. Ros0709 (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea how to properly make Wikipedia talk page edits, so perhaps someone can correct my formatting if this is all wrong, but I disagree with the above. It certainly seems that some of the entries on this article are unverifiable, wrong, etc. and should be deleted. To say the entire article should disappear, though? That's a bit much. I've actually been using the "200[x] in Music" page to plan music purchases for about two years now, and haven't had a single problem with innaccurate information (In fact...if this page disappears, I will become an ex-user of Wikipedia, as this is the only thing I come for.) Obviously, there is some ability for us to reasonably list future releases of music. CDs don't just appear out of nowhere...their release dates are planned, promoted, and scheduled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.240.152.5 (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep because I'm certain that at least some of this can be sourced reliably. The content on 2009 in country music can all be sourced verifiably, at least, so why not for all genres? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep WTF? 2008 is almost over, and there's no reason to delete this article. Alex (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep- Certainly there's sources out there for something that begins in just 13 days. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Snowball Keep Why delete it now when 2009 is only 3 weeks away and we would have to recreate it again. Most of the material on the list is confirmed to happen (although I haven't checked everything personally), so WP:CRYSTAL really doesn't apply. Tavix (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per above comments. &mdash; `C RAZY `( lN )`S ANE ` 08:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Just strated checking more thoroughly and removing unverifiable content. Admittedly from starting at the end where the content is likely more dubious, but so far 16 of the 17 refs were invalid and removed. The article concept is not at dispute: when something of note happens in 2009 then add it, but this is all speculation and nonsense. Ros0709 (talk) 09:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've checked 2nd quarter forwards and virtually nothing was adequately referenced (2 remain). Far more worrying, I've also checked January (which should be trivial to reference now) and more than half the refs were invalid. This whole article is hugely problematic. Empty it and start again!
 * Delete. There is no need for speculation just yet. Elm-39 (talk) 13:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply to sourced speculation, which this is.  Meticulously sourced, in fact.  JulesH (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As noted above, virtually none of the refs checked so far stands up to scrutiny. Ros0709 (talk) 14:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Two weeks yesterday (as I write) is New Year's Day 2009. So why delete the page for the music of next year? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 14:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For the reasons given in the nomination. Ros0709 (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep it's here in two weeks - why bother deleting? Just strip out the rumours and fancruft and keep what's left as a stub. It'll be a stub for a fortnight OH NOES ZOMG !!!11!!! etc. what's the fuss? Totnesmartin (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep; I totally agree that deleting it now would be silly. And it would turn a few users away from this site to boot. 96.246.232.202 (talk) 03:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep 2009 is in less than two weeks. What's the harm?  Sam  Blab 16:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:COMMONSENSE among other things. It doesn't make much sense to delete the article just to bring it back in a few days. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't appear to be a serious problem. The sources are not WP:RS quality, but they don't appear to be dubious either. This is a cleanup job. 2008 in music developed just like this. If 2008 is any guide, we'll have historic facts by the first week in January. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 20 December 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.