Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Thousand Suns (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   Keep, as things changed during the debate. Rich Farmbrough, 18:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC).

A Thousand Suns
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article creation is premature, as on now the article fails WP:NALBUM and WP:HAMMER. Article should be at minimum redirected. (CK)Lakeshade ✽ talk2me 19:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In what way does it violate WP:HAMMER? The album obviously has a name.  Powers T 19:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "If the name and track order of a future album are not yet known, the album is very likely to have its page deleted from Wikipedia" Is there a tracklisting? Nope. (CK)Lakeshade ✽ talk2me  20:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it says "name and track order". Only if both of those are unknown does WP:HAMMER, as written, apply.  Powers T 00:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No it doesnt. It clearly says both, name and track order. Even if there is only one, it still fails hammer. (CK)Lakeshade ✽ talk2me  00:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I can see how it might be interpreted either way. If it said "If the name and track order together are not yet known", then I would agree with your interpretation.  I interpret it as "If the name is not yet known and the track order is not yet known."  In that case, either one being known invalidates the clause.  Powers T 11:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Reluctant keep- there's enough sourced information there that an article is feasible. And last I knew, WP:HAMMER was a guideline, not a set in stone policy. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hammer is a strongly used guideline, its not set in stone but it is something good to go by. Regarding the sourcing, it only contains three references, the personal should not even be included considering the album hasnt been released so thats complete WP:OR. And the only references used in the article are regarding the lead single and release date. So how is that considered good referencing? As for the article itself its not notable enough yet, that is why i propose deletion until more information becomes available. (I would support an incubation) (CK)Lakeshade ✽ talk2me  21:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * HAMMER is a guideline regarding albums for which little to no information is known, articles that receive titles like Somebands Fourth Studio Album. Here, we have sourced information regarding the title, a producer, and recording information. Which is enough, at least in my opinion, to allow a basic stub on the topic. A redirect is at least feasible until more information is released. However, since this actually *is* the album title, deletion shouldn't be on the table, as its a reasonable search topic, and once more information is released, it would be preferable to simply undo the redirect and add the new information, as opposed to creating a new article from scratch. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As the nominator and I have both suggested, incubation would allow the article to be developed outside of the namespace until the album's track listing is verified. Until we get the track listing, this is a crystal ball.  Cliff smith  talk  16:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:HAMMER is neither policy nor guideline, but an essay which is often cited in lieu of actually checking whether an article subject meets the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Linkin Park: It's not a big deal, but just for complete clarification, WP:HAMMER is a well-respected essay based on multiple observations of prematurely-created stand-alone articles about albums that have not yet been released and lack enough information to warrant a stand-alone article. (It was once proposed that it should become a fifth point of WP:CRYSTAL, but it was basically found to be rather redundant to existing guidelines.)  In this case, I wouldn't say that it applies 100%, but regardless of that this runs afoul of WP:NALBUM, which the nominator cited as well.  And as it says, "generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label."  There is basically one paragraph of verified information here and until the track listing is confirmed, information about this unreleased album should remain at the artist's article.  If anyone would like to continue developing the article, we could incubate until the track listing is confirmed, as the nominator duly noted.  Cliff smith  talk  02:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, Possible Redirect: I personally have also seen WP:HAMMER as more of a guideline than an actual set-in-stone rule, but it is a well laid-out one, especially with regards to the level of it's simplicity and effectiveness across multiple categories including music, movies, and games. As of present, till at least next month (based on the current flow rate), pretty much little-to-no information on the album will likely be available, therefore, it is unlikely the article will move anywhere past stub class as of present. So, my present position is to let the article remain as a stub-class article, but if that is not the agreed upon consensus, I find a present redirect to be acceptable so the article will not have to be created from scratch as the base information is correct. ⒺⓋⒾ ⓁⒼⓄ ⒽⒶⓃ ②  talk 16:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The artist's article already has information about this album. Albums get advance stand-alone articles in rare cases, but since the amount of verifiable and properly referenced information about this one at present is indeed stub-class, this is not such a case.  Incubation would mean that it wouldn't have to be created from scratch.
 * As a separate note, this article was deleted less than a fortnight ago— recreated it within three hours of its deletion and it was tagged for speedy deletion as a page that was previously deleted via a deletion discussion. I don't know if that applies anymore, but there still is not enough information about this album for it to have a stand-alone article quite yet.  Cliff smith  talk  17:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly satisfies the GNG; with the official announcement, the basis for the previous AFD outcome is no longer applicable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It does not pass WP:NALBUM, which means it does not pass WP:CRYSTAL, which means it cannot be presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article yet. It's already included at the artist's article, which is where it belongs until we get the track listing.  Cliff smith  talk  17:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make a shred of sense. It satisfies the GNG directly (which means it passes NALBUM); WP:CRYSTAL clearly doesn't apply. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay look, we do know the title and release date, so maybe it's not quite a WP:CRYSTAL violation as well, but it still does not pass WP:NALBUM because the necessary trifecta, as it were, of title and release date and track listing is incomplete. Plain and simple.  Just because a subject has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources does not guarantee that a subject is appropriate for inclusion in a stand-alone article.  A Thousand Suns is already included at Linkin Park—basically everything here was already there—which makes this article redundant at least, for the time being.  I just don't think that a stub's worth of information about this future album is enough to justify keeping it in the namespace right now.  As I suggested already, we can easily incubate this until we get the track listing.  Would you be opposed to that?  Cliff smith  talk  20:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course. That's implicit in my keep !vote, close to explicit. It meets the GNG and there's enough information to write a coherent article. Temporary deletion is a waste of effort, not unlike this tendentious argument. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't WP:NALBUM an augment to the GNG? If that were the case then yes, it seems the most efficient course of action (seeing as more information should be released somewhat in the near-future) that a temporary redirect and incubation of the article makes sense. If NALBUM is not an augment and GNG overrides NALBUM in this case, then possibly the article will stay as it is. Besides, if an article first satisfies the GNG before any other specifics on notability, it seems slightly pointless to have the sub-policies in place. A complete deletion, though, seems a little too much. Garfield1675 (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, all the subject-specific notability guidelines, like NALBUM and NFF, are indeed augments to the GNG. I mean, it's not as though there haven't been or aren't cases where albums get advance articles, this just doesn't appear to be one.  And I agree that complete deletion would be too much.  Even the nominator would support an incubation.  Cliff smith  talk  16:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Can't we just leave the page, I don't know why you all have your dicks hard about deleting it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.254.51 (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's hardly a compelling argument... ⒺⓋⒾ ⓁⒼⓄ ⒽⒶⓃ ②  talk 18:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y 67.241.254.51 (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please either contribute to the conversation at hand or step away, but either way, cease your attacks on other users. In all honesty, it's nothing short of being an asinine individual. Either that, or you're just flat out trolling as of which if such is the case, I will report you to the AIV. ⒺⓋⒾ ⓁⒼⓄ ⒽⒶⓃ ②  talk 01:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, as stub-- As of 22 July 2010, the official Linkin Park website |linkinpark.com is now a webpage promoting the album and the cover artwork appears have been released. I suppose that doesn't necessarily mean that the article has becomes acceptable, but with the title, release date, and album artwork released, and the lead single announced, there certainly appears to be plenty of information about the album. I would also suggest that if there is a way to add this without it being personal research, it would be useful to describe how the album artwork was revealed-- pixel-by-pixel via a TwitterBot. But at the very least, I would think the best course of action would be to mark the article as a stub, and wait to see how much more information about the album becomes available over the next few weeks as the lead single is released. 75.23.67.151 (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * small note -- marked as a music-class stub article. ⒺⓋⒾ ⓁⒼⓄ ⒽⒶⓃ ②  talk 22:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keeep - Page should be kept, as information will increase for this page closer to the release date--Tristwin (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Not Delete – There have been enough sources and news articles published since 2008 detailing the writing and recording process of A Thousand Suns. It's easily within reach to create a detailed multi-paragraph section on this topic. If someone were to do this soon, I would vote keep. If not, then this article should redirect to Linkin Park where such information has already been written. Either way, the title has been officially confirmed so there is no reason to fully scrap the article with a deletion (hence the unconventional "Not Delete" vote). Fezmar9 (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - completely agree with Fezmar9, the album now has cover art, name, release date AND now tracking list, beside all the data concerning the development of the album, and the proximity of the release of the catalyst.män-et-arms (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Right, well the track listing has indeed been confirmed, so everything looks good to me. Cliff smith  talk  15:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Everything is in order now. I don't see the point in deleting the article only to recreate it in a few days or weeks with all of the same information. WereWolf (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2010 (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.