Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banks of Eden


 * 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   delete. The consensus here does not appear to have accepted that the sources provided by Floydian are sufficiently independent and reliable to confer notability. Rather the most prevalent feeling is that the album should be released first. This discussion has been online for almost four weeks, and the release is scheduled to happen fairly shortly. If and when the album is released, another evaluation of the subject against WP:NALBUMS may be made. Restoration of the content may be a possible option at that point, but the article at present is fairly short, and reviews that allow a better article to be written often become available when the album is actually released. Sjakkalle (Check!)  19:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Banks of Eden

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Fails WP:NALBUM and also falls foul of WP:CRYSTAL.  Captain Screebo Parley! 14:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep, suggest withdrawl - It is recognized as an upcoming release by possibly the top online Prog resource, Progarchives, so there is no WP:CRYSTAL issue. A quick search reveals this is the topic of several reliable sources in the Progressive Rock world.Dutch Progressive Rock Project Official BlogPower of Prog Surprisingly, this is making mainstream music news, which is nice to see for the massively underheard group.Pure Grain AudioBlabbermouth/Roadrunner RecordsInsideOut MusicAntiMusic -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  20:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Last I checked, an album article needs far more than just independent recognition that it's going to be released to bypass WP:CRYSTAL. The fact remains that it is not yet released, so the article is indeed at issue with that policy. There's no reason not to simply create a new article once the album actually exists.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I provided six very reliable sources that provide more than just acknowledgement of a release. Many of those sources are high profile music media outlets where you would never expect to see news regarding this band. I don't see the need to delete the article solely on the basis that these exact same contents would be justifiable in about 45 days. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  05:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - Quick research shows that the album will be released mid June,so why not keep the article as is and extend it (instead of adding) to make it justifiable ? Makes no sense to me to delete it now and then have to add it once more after a couple of weeks. Cdl obelix (talk) 10:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Floydian: I don't see even ONE source in the article, much less "six very reliable sources". And again, "It's going to be released" is the precise argument that WP: CRYSTAL was created to refute.
 * Cdl obelix: There's the matter of setting precedent. Wikipedia becomes little more than a promotional forum if editors can just create any article they want, and say "Well, there's no point in deleting it now and recreating in a couple months" (not a couple of weeks) if it gets proposed for deletion. Also, it's a double-edged argument: if you can just re-create it in a couple months, why is deleting it such a catastrophe?--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I know they're not in the article, they're in my keep reasoning. See WP:BEFORE, specifically B2, C2 and D. The bare URLS I provided can be slapped on within seconds. WP:CRYSTAL was created to avoid speculation into the future, not reliably sourced or confirmed dates that things will almost certainly happen on ("Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." Emphasis mine). That's why there are articles prepared for sports tournaments upwards of months before the event takes place. As long as we're not making up figures or facts. Also see Category:Upcoming albums (which includes such gems as 50 Cent's fifth studio album). -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  14:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Reliable Sources: just to point out to Floydian that the "bare URLs" that you wish to slap into the article are *not* reliable sources.


 * #1 blog
 * #2 forum post
 * #3 music fan site, initially a blog, now (they say they have) 20 writers, what credentials etc. what weight, how reliable?
 * #4 user-generated posts
 * #5 own record label blurb (so not independent coverage)
 * #6 press release from aforementioned record label (on another obscure music website)
 * So only one even qualifies for consideration, and to quote WP:NALBUM "An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence" (my emphasis). And 50 Cent is not the Flower Kings and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.  Captain Screebo Parley! 11:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The DPRP Blog is the official blog of Dutch Progressive Rock Project, which is one of the most significant internet resources for progressive rock music, which is far more obscure than mainstream pop or rock music and has far less mainstream sources, including PureGrainAudio. 5 and 6 are no good for establishing notability on those grounds, but are nonetheless reliable sources for the article to ascertain dates or facts. The rest I can concur that I did not recognize as being forum posts. I was not using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a keep rationale, but rather to aid in showing Martin Illa that WP:CRYSTAL couldn't apply to an album with a known/upcoming release date since we have an entire category of albums that are just that. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  06:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll assume that the lack of reply into those four sources means there is nothing to discredit them as reliable sources establishing at least some notability upon the subject. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  22:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, Floydian, this raises the question: If you think the sources belong in the article, why haven't you added them by now? For that matter, why hasn't anyone else? If editors aren't willing to work toward getting the article up to basic WP:NALBUM standards now, when the existence of the article is on the line, then they're certainly not going to do it after a decision to keep it has been made.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The article was nominated pretty quickly after creation, and WP:BEFORE are the instructions for AfD. I haven't had the time and generally my efforts are focused elsewhere, but I suppose I could whip them up tomorrow if I have a chance. I'm sure within days of its actual release numerous new sources will become available. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  06:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Done -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  22:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Delete: No sources provided that show notability after two relists. SL93 (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Four reliable references are provided above. This !vote fails to address how they are not reliable nor how they do not show notability. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  22:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry but my comment here is that Wikipedia is being turned into a sort of encyclopaedic MySpace, and there are overwhelming numbers of "fanboys" defending crap (imho) articles on j-pop, video games, music etc. which do not adhere to the standards of the relevant policies, and people just go "look at all the hits", "it's on a reliable blog", "there will be coverage in the future", jesus, I loved XTC and their seminal single Making Plans for Nigel, which featured a board game and charted and doesn't have an article but redirects to the album, and now WP is just full of shite crap insignificant shit that has thousands of internet posts, ok, I know I'm railing but seriously, there are longer articles on some shit R'nB song/video than on major performers' works. I just wonder where is >WP going, seen the influx of "hey it's on the net, I think it's popular, WP should have it", I sort of give up, what is the point?  Captain Screebo Parley! 14:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I agree wholeheartedly. I hate seeing crap on these "music" makers that publish crap on a monthly basis, but instantly chart because of who they are. I'm personally just trying to balance things out a bit by providing an article on progressive rock, which IMO is very underrepresented. Getting any publication is huge for this obscure genre. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  14:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok appreciated, honestly I have nothing against the band or their albums, I was just new page patrolling and this didn't seem to correspond to the criteria for NALBUM, the problem is that criteria are not applied systematically, there are huge articles on j-pop singles and bands which are probably longer than Led Zep. Sad (and the ultimate death of Wp as a serious source for me). Regards.  Captain Screebo Parley! 15:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete ASAP - Violates WP:CRYSTAL ("short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate"), WP:NALBUM ("An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence."), WP:ROUTINE ("routine news coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for an article") and WP:GNG ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). <strong style="color:#9400D2;font-family:comic sans ms;">ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ <strong style="color:#DC143C;">Speak 13:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As shown above, numerous sources that provide an edge case to WP:GNG (which supercedes WP:NALBUM, but more or less the two say the same). WP:CRYSTAL is very clearly unapplicable as the article contains far more than product announcement information here, and the release date is sourced reliably. The only source that is routine is the one that isn't independent of the source (the blabbermouth/road runner announcement). DPRP alone (including the official blog) is probably the most expansive and reliable resources for progressive rock on wikipedia, short of dead tree biographies. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  18:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG is not met - the text of references 2-4 all comprise largely of an interview which is given in (primary) reference 1 - that's not substantial, non-trivial coverage. WP:CRYSTAL is clearly applicable as the article reads as a product announcement one would expect to read on a music site. I believe WP:ROUTINE applies as, once again, the sources are exactly what I would expect from music sites covering the release of a new album. <strong style="color:#9400D2;font-family:comic sans ms;">ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ <strong style="color:#DC143C;">Speak 06:11, 24 May 2012 (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.