Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Saturday Night


 * 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. Flowerparty ☀ 06:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

American Saturday Night

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

A little too soon for an article, methinks. Yes, the single's in the Top 10, but there's absolutely nothing else to say about the album. No tracklist, cover art, or any other verifiable info is confirmed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 03:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  --  J mundo 04:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but shouldn't we give it some time? There'll be more information on the album eventually. There are pages of upcoming movies and music that exist, and they don't have much information yet either. I don't really see a reason to delete this article. The information will come eventually. Just give it some time. Ryanbstevens (talk) 10:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Somebody did put in a USA Today interview in there. It wasn't me, but there's some information. Ryanbstevens (talk) 10:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I believe that WP:MUSIC notes that albums that are scheduled for release are considered viable. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 15:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's kind of a silly rule, given that's all we freaking know about the album right now. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 18:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. What's the point of deleting it now when it will just be created again when we know more? As more information comes out, the article will expand.(Ex: I found the USA Today thing) Just hold on! Publichall (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Too early for an article. Not quite a WP:CRYSTAL violation, but with no tracklist, there's nothing to say that isn't best said elsewhere.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. These Google hits about the album and tour seem to be enough to warrant the article. —  Σ xplicit  00:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: There's not much here to fill up an article other than a release date and info on a single that already has its own page anyways. CloversMallRat (talk) 02:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, what's the point of deleting this article if it's just gonna come back with the same name when there's more info on it anyway? Think about that. Ryanbstevens (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What's the point of having an article with no verifiable information, only speculation? Same difference. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 14:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * there's no point in reinventing the wheel. new articles are being published all the time. I know wikipedia isn't a crystal ball but there is no speculation I can see in this article. We all know what's coming. Publichall (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You act like deleting this album page means you can't re-create it when you have enough info ... just wait, most album articles don't get created until a week or two ahead of time at most - this is why, 6 weeks before the album's release offers little to put an article together. CloversMallRat (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That does not mean that we should delete it. Ryanbstevens (talk) 10:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete At the moment it does not exist and any information about it is little more than speculation and publisher hype, so as it is at the moment it is non-encyclopedic and falls on the wrong side of WP:CRYSTAL. Trevor Marron (talk) 10:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What exactly will deleting this article do? Is the point here to convince people to not create articles like this one too soon? The album exists, it's just not in the light of day yet, or to be exact it's under construction, basically. Ryanbstevens (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply That's a major part of the value of deleting crystalline articles. Most Wikipedia editors learn by copying what they see, and the more articles that shouldn't have been created are left laying around, the more they get copied, and the more the problem grows.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What problem? What's the major consequence of not deleting this article that could happen? What are we trying to avoid here by deleting this article? Ryanbstevens (talk) 02:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * People creating articles full of speculation and gossip, which is the normal consequence of an article being created before there are enough reliable sources to create a complete article. That's wahy WP:CRYSTAL is a policy.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Please don't write articles like this. No track listing. No certain release date (only the fake certainty of the word will). No charts (for the album itself). There are plenty of notable albums that actually exist that we need articles on, but instead you choose to write about an album that doesn't exist. Why? --Zundark (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No offense, but you're acting like the album doesn't exist when it will eventually. Try telling me this in July, when the album does exist. Speculation and gossip is not the worst thing to have in an article, although i do agree that as long as it's sourced by something, it should be okay, shouldn't it? I know about new albums that are to be released, and some of them might wind up being unreleased, and you won't really see me create articles on albums that are to be released or unreleased unless there's a release date. This album does at least have a release date, and i know very well that this album will be released no matter what. Brad Paisley is riding on hills of success right now, with 13 number-one hits, and 9 of them consecutively. I think that the album exists, or in this case, will exist. I still think that deleting this article is pointless, and will just come back up eventually anyway when there's more information about it. Ryanbstevens (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

OFF SUBJECT RESPONSE: At least i'm not really stupid enough to create an article on David Nail's I'm About To Come Alive album, or Lonestar's The Future album, which neither of them have a confirmed release date, and if their singles chart low like they have been doing so far, those albums won't be released. I know one Wikipedia rule, and that's to not create articles on unreleased albums. As for Brad Paisley's new album, i don't think that it'll wind up being unreleased. Ryanbstevens (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What Zundark said makes no point at all. This user thinks that the album doesn't exist. IT EXISTS. It's just not out yet. If there's a source on it, it should be created. Personally, i think that any source is reliable. No source is perfect. The info and track listing will come. And again, the album exists (or will exist), and i personally think that a release date, a name, and at least one track is good enough to warrant an article. I have one question: Are we trying to discourage people from creating album articles too soon? Ryanbstevens (talk) 11:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You are missing the point: even if it does exist, it may as well not exist as far as we are concerned, since we don't even have basic information about it (such as the track listing), nor do we have any reviews of it, nor do we have any evidence that it is notable (since, in fact, it isn't notable, even if it may eventually be). As for your question: I certainly am (though I can't speak for anyone else). I am fed up with seeing articles that say things like "It will be released on 11 March 2009" - apparently the writer was so excited about it that they couldn't wait for the release before writing the article, yet after it was released (or failed to be released - who knows which?) they couldn't be bothered to update the article to tell us about it. If, unlike so many other people, you are still going to be interested in the article after the album has been released, then why not simply wait until then to write the article? --Zundark (talk) 12:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Stop... Pretty close to HAMMERTIME--Unionhawk Talk 17:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep it please. Will it hurt if we keep it? If so, then how? Ryanbstevens (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Rant. By the time we're done arguing, it will be in existence. just keep it up! Publichall (talk) 06:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * etc. The album is already available for pre-order on Amazon.com so what do you think? link Publichall (talk) 06:04, 12 May 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.