Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AC/DC's fifteenth studio album (2nd nomination)


 * 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   No Consensus, defaults to Keep, disagreement over whether this is a WP:CRYSTAL violation at this stage. Davewild (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

AC/DC's fifteenth studio album
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is entirely a WP:CRYSTAL violation and is composed almost entirely of rumors. Is not yet notable per WP:MUSIC, as the album title, release date, and track list have not been officially released by the label. Fails WP:HAMMER. PROD for these reasons contested, saying that confirmation by the label is forthcoming; if this does happen during this AfD, I will be happy to withdraw. lifebaka++ 13:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Let's wait until something happens. Alex (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete There are sources, but only one or two pertains to the album in question, the rest is just coatrack. Overall, I still think this fails WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I revert anonymous editors several times a day, with their updates and rumour mill garbage, and my (and other editors') appeals fall on deaf ears. While this article as it stands is a waste of space, deleting it is a total waste of time. I predict its recreation within 10 minutes of its deletion, complete with all the badly sourced guff you see there now. The official announcement is "fairly" imminent, and when it comes it will be renamed and wiped of all the unsourced stuff. There's just no point in deletion / recreation time after time. We surely have a week or two's patience to wait for the official word. I also think the album IS notable, simply because it is confirmed officially that there IS an album coming this year, and the band itself makes the album notable. Why does the album need a name to be notable? Its notability is hardly reduced because it is temporarily nameless. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note I have removed the worst of the badly sourced rumours, and what remains seems well sourced - the official website, Reuters etc. Any further comments would be welcome. "Somewhat" reliable sources, which are not in the article because of their non-official status do state that a single is due this month. I am possibly the harshest editor working on this article, along with User:Anger22, but even I concede that an announcement about the single IS due within days or a couple of weeks, probably with the album details too. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As soon as such an announcement comes I'll be happy to undelete. But without it, the album isn't notable by the accepted guideline.  Against repeated recreation, salting the earth is always an option, and predicted recreation is not a good reason not to delete.  I would like to note that this nomination is not supposed to be a slight against you or other editors working on the article, it's just that the album does not currently belong on Wikipedia.  Cheers.  lifebaka++ 23:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I just think that to go to all the trouble of deleting and salting the earth etc for something which will be recreated "legitimately" within a few days is a bit over the top. The album is clearly on its way soon, with proper sources to verify. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Passes WP:CRYSTAL because it has references and sources. There is, and will be more, info on AC/DC's website as the release date draws nearer. I agree with Bretonbanquet. Tezkag72 (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * weak keep plus comment I just heard on the radio, the new album is possibly titled Black Ice. If this is the case, and it can be properly sourced, wouldn't that make this AFD somewhat moot? Even so, i'm going with a weak keep for a couple reasons, one that it does seem sourced, and two, that it previously survived one AFD. If the name can be confirmed, I'll change to strong keep. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources aren't solid, just a pile of contradictory rumors. Kww (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Which sources aren't solid, the ones from the official website? Reuters, perhaps? Which rumours are contradictory? Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Rephrase: The sources, while reliable, aren't reporting solid information. There are multiple release dates spanning 4 years, multiple release channels, only rumors for titles, and no confirmed track list. Kww (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Wait until AC/DC officially release the name of the new album. Doctoracdc72 (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * CommentThere is now only one segment containing information about the release of the album, from the official site. There is confusion over the release channel, but it is well sourced. I do not accept that the absence of a title or a track listing automatically makes an album non-notable. A confirmed, but untitled, upcoming album by a world-famous band is infinitely more notable than a titled album with a track listing from a more obscure band. I don't see how the article fails WP:CRYSTAL because the album is officially confirmed. WP:HAMMER is a guideline, one which I believe is flawed anyway. Notability does not, or should not, depend on whether an album has a title or not. Either it's notable or it isn't, and this album is notable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, HAMMER is an essay. But it's based off of WP:MUSIC, which says those things are usually required.  I'm perfectly happy to have people prove me wrong, though.  Cheers.  lifebaka ++  19:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's monitored well enough to stay consistent with the refs and rumour free. Libs (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think whatever factual content exists can be maintained until it is released. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 21:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There is information about it apparently, even if the name has not been disclosed yet. But there is information about the recording of the album and about some songs to be on it, all sourced with reliable sources. It does thus not fail WP:CRYSTAL and the fact that some people add rumors does not give a reason for deletion, more a reason for semi-protection or protection.  So # Why  review me! 17:12, 10 August 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.