Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aerosmith's fifteenth studio 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 00:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Aerosmith&

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

The article is unreferenced and the album hasn't been released yet. This fails both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER (Hammer because of it's unknown name). Disturbed Nerd  999  00:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 *  Delete Weak keep as WP:OR; unlikley search title so no need for a rd article has been much improved and there are sources. JJL (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as unsourced article full of speculation. I have no problems if we have an article on Aerosmith's next album once we have an album name, release date and information on tracks based on reliable sources. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly, nothing about the album can currently be verified. Once we get this criteria based on reliable sources, then we can have an article on the album. Until then, it's hammertime! This easily gets smashed with a crystal hammer.-- Disturbed Nerd  999  01:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, of course; it's speculation at this point. Since a bunch of work has been put into it, I suggest the deleting admin email a copy of the page's contents to the creator so it can be restored when the album is released. (If not, ask me and I'll provide it.) Frank  |  talk  01:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:HAMMER, nothing but speculation at this point. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, STOP.......Hammer time.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 02:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No references. Keep. That concern has been addressed. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 22:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Smash it with the crystal hammer. MuZemike 03:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Hey, I added references to the article. So, the majority of it is now not speculation, as it is backed up in sources. Granted, the album does not have a name yet, but once it does, I will gladly move the content to a new article bearing the album's name. But as it stands, their upcoming album has been talked about a lot for the past 3 years or so in the press and the point of the article is to give a history of the work in progress and the things that are known about the album. Also, given the tentative release date is only about three or four months away, interest is growing in the album and it is imperative to get the information out there now for those who seek it, and get the ball rolling so to speak. Abog (talk) 06:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete cuz its HAMMER TIME. JBsupreme (talk) 07:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is now properly verified and contains all the information you could wish for a future album. Possible songs, recording information and information about producers and surrounding circumstances. The only thing missing is the name, but in light of the content I'm willing to overlook that. If other users don't I recommend userfication so it's easily restored when the album does get released. - Mgm|(talk) 10:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Stop… Hammer time. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) | (talk to me) | (What I've done)  10:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as someone who helped purge Wikipedia of these articles, I have to say I think that this is one of the notable exceptions. Not all "xth studio album" articles are terrible; In Rainbows had about the same amount of detail, two weeks before release (when the title wasn't known). Sceptre (talk) 10:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - The addition of sources noted above led me to re-examine. I remain convinced that deletion is in order; the sources are either bad links, old articles that don't apply to this (or any) album, or original research. Because a song has been recorded by Aerosmith (and not all the ASCAP links even list that) does not mean it will be on this album...it's still OR even if it's well-documented OR. Quality and verifiability are always preferable to quantity. The increased number of references does nothing to help this article. Frank  |  talk  12:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I too checked several links and I agree with the above. Several are bad links, others outdated, and the "Track Listing" section is entirely WP:OR, with "references" that merely show the songs exist. Is there a cite for the very first sentence in the article--that an album is to be released this year? JJL (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep There appears to be enough info to support a stub at this time, which can be expanded as more news is released. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  14:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems much more well-sourced than your typical Crystal Hammer candidates. With all of the citations for the backstory and the production, the absence of a known title should not be cause for smashage. Arakunem Talk 17:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep; it appears to me that there is by far enough sourced, verifiable information to (a) make this article able to conform to WP:V, and (b) be too large for a section in the main Aerosmith article. As such, it seems a perfectly viable split of content into a separate article. ~ mazca  t 18:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd also remind a few participants here that WP:HAMMER is an essay that, quite correctly, observes a regular trend in AfD debates. It is not a policy or guideline and just because an album does not have a title is not in itself a reason to delete the article - merely an observation that it is likely if the article suffers from the other regularly-seen problems with future album articles. ~ mazca  t 18:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's very true. HAMMER is true maybe 99% of the time, this is one of the rare exceptions.  Besides, it's quite possible for an album to be very notable [Led Zeppelin IV|without anyone knowing the title] ;-) Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Likely is the key term with Hammer. However, most Wikipedians around the age of 30 very well cannot resist a little time travel back to Hammertime every once in a while :-) MuZemike 18:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, of course, I enjoy an excursion there myself every now and then :D. It's also a very true essay that does reflect a common outcome: I just dislike its persistent use as a deletion reason in itself. ~ mazca  t 18:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Points below are correct, I think: while much of the information in the article is backed up by sources, it's true that the overall picture of the album seems to be synthesised from various sources most of which aren't really talking about the album at all. On my initial review of some of the sources, I failed to acknowledge the difference between the source saying "Steven Tyler has surgery" and the article saying "Steven Tyler had surgery hence delaying the album". This kind of problem is repeated several times, and so while most of the article is probably true it's not really backed up by its own sources. Hence, while most of the facts are verifiable, the article as a whole really isn't. I'm retracting my "Keep" opinion - with rephrasing there's useful info here, but it doesn't look like most of it is directly based on sources about the album and it probably does belong back in the artist's article. ~  mazca  t 15:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop the execution! – We now have verifiable speculation, which is OK. Hence, I change to keep. The article can be moved to the article name when it gets announced. MuZemike 18:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Is anyone even checking the sources? Almost none of them even mentions the album. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, a lot of the article as it stands now, deals with the on-again/off-again that the album has gone through, with mentions that the band was recording (e.g. Ref 9). Much of the rest of the album-specific talk comes from the Joe Perry interview referenced by aeroforceone.com, so I guess much of the verifiability hinges on the reliability of that site. Arakunem Talk 18:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment the article is much improved by its recent shortening, but still contains far too much WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. For example, the article says: "Recording was interrupted in the spring of 2008, however, due to surgeries to both Steven Tyler[10] and lead guitarist Joe Perry[11]." But refs. 10 and 11 only verify (if that fan site is reliable) that the surgeries on S.T. occurred and that those on J.P. were scheduled; it talks about interrupting performing, and says nothing at all about any recording. There's still no cite for the claim that it'll be released this year. The link naming the producer doesn't say what exactly he'll be producing and mostly talks about a trip to Disneyworld. Much of the articles is synthesized from a single web site of unclear reliability/third-party-ness. It would need more clean-up of speculation and more sourcing to be acceptable. Where are the reliable, third-party sources? JJL (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I have to agree with the Hammer that people really should check the sources. A lot of them are unreliable or do not provide the information that they are cited for. And, about WP:HAMMER, if anyone here were to check what the article looked like when I nominated it, this was a definite candidate. Even now it still contains speculation and fails WP:CRYSTAL. I realize that having the album name is not really a requirement if the album hasn't been released yet, but this is not like the In Rainbows album. This is about three months or even more before the album is released, not just a couple of weeks. Considering this article is still loaded with speculation and OR, it's best to delete for now, and recreate the article later when enough verifiable information is present and is backed up by a significant amount of reliable, third party sources. (Blogs, fansites, or any other sites related to Aerosmith are not reliable).-- Disturbed Nerd  999  20:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope any closing admin will realize that no, the sources do not comprise substantial coverage at this point. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there's people around, who not even look at articles they discuss here. -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord 2  06:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: notability of the album not established WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Points taken on the Synthesis issues. I added a cite from E! Online that explicitly calls out JP's knee surgery as being a direct cause of some of the delay, as well as the sidetrack to promote the Guitar Hero release. It also supports several other statements in the article as it stands, and is an additional third-party source not yet cited. Nothing is firm yest for a release, but it seems increasingly obvious that there is significant coverage of this album, even in a nebulous state. Arakunem Talk 15:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 more cites added, including one from Rolling Stone. I can go on.... Arakunem Talk 16:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Snow keep. Plenty of sources. Just ensure as soon as the title is confirmed that the article gets updated. Somehow I imagine that will be done quickly. -- Banj e  b oi   00:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. Contains no information that wouldn't fit in the Aerosmith article. Basically just says "they recording a new album, and it will be released soon." If there was a tracklist or something, that would be another story. Macarion (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Lots of "could" and "or" in the article as well as some stuff that might fit better into the band's main article (tour, GuitHero) but as this will pop up again very soon anyway there's no need to annoy the article creator now. -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord 2  06:09, 6 March 2009 (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.