Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cannibal (EP)


 * 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 snowball keep. Clearly, deletion is not merited here, and AFD is not the venue to suggest merging—that can be taken to the article's talk page. — ξ xplicit  20:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Cannibal (EP)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

WP:CRYSTAL violation in the form of a WP:HAMMER violation. No announced tracklist. Not enough information available to produce a useful article. &mdash;Kww(talk) 05:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  —  D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 13:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - According to hammer it passes as the Title has been confirmed with a set release now available. Some will argue both tracklisting and Title, but Hammer does not specifically state both or only one. That aside information became only available today, in one day do you honestly not think there is not alot of information already available? Also, please see WP:GNG. - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 05:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The GNG is not a mandate. We are not under any obligation to have an article on everything that two sources can be scraped together for. When looking at WP:MUSIC for the guideline on when to include unreleased material, it reserves it for "In a few special cases, an unreleased album may qualify for an advance article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it—for example, Guns 'n Roses' 2008 album Chinese Democracy had an article as early as 2004. However, this only applies to a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects—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." What makes this fairly run-of-the-mill EP by a run-of-the-mill artist part of that "very  small number of exceptionally high-profile projects"? &mdash;Kww(talk) 15:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep why does wikipedia try to delete everything? its good article, keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.154.195 (talk) 06:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, well written, plenty of sources, and no speculation, thus certainly not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. I also note how silly it is to nominate this for deletion, given the former sentence. It's one thing to want to delete some album planned to be released in 2015 by some local band, it's quite another thing to want to delete well written articles soon-to-be-released-albums/EPs/singles from top selling artists out of some weird sense that articles can't exists until some arbitrary deadline (situated at most in a few days from now) hasn't been reached yet. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - sure the article is a little premature, but the deletion nomination is an incorrect use of WP:CRYSTAL which applies to unverified and speculative events that might happen at some unknown time in the future. Just because something is in the near-future does not mean that saying so is pure speculation, when third-party sources have confirmed the upcoming event. All this article really needs is a cover image, otherwise it's for real. -- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 13:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - as per everything people have said above. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT   (Talk)  15:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I am fed up of seeing these all over the damn place. As previously stated, the article is well-written, well sourced and is going to be released. Half of the time, these deletion discussion get resolved just under a week before it has to go back up. No reason for it to be deleted. It's just silly. Adam 94 (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And I am equivalently fed up with editors that haven't got the patience to wait for something to be real before writing the article. There's no reason to have articles on unreleased singles, albums, or EPs, except, as WP:MUSIC states, a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects. Nothing qualifies this EP to be considered in that select group.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - the guideline cited by Kww above has non-specific terms that allow flexibility, including "very", "small", "exceptionally", and "high profile." I'm not totally sure who has the burden of proof here, but it might be the nominator given some of the equally flexible guidelines at WP:ATA. If you think this EP is not "high-profile" enough (for example), it would help this nomination to explain why. But in any case, the original nomination is still off-base altogether because the article does not violate the two guidelines mentioned specifically at that point: WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. And so what if it's too early for an album article? Delete now and it will just be recreated later, and who is forcing you to read it in the meantime? -- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 18:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, WP:MUSIC is responsible for explaining how to apply policies to its topic area. It violates WP:CRYSTAL as explained by WP:MUSIC. The burden of proof is always on the people wanting to include material, and never on those wishing to remove it. You might want to illustrate some way that this EP is exceptionally high-profile. That would go a long way towards meeting WP:MUSIC.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's high profile enough to warrant an article only a month before its release IMO. – Chase  ( talk ) 22:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Lets ask, does it pass WP:MUSIC? - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 18:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources." Title and release confirmed by dozens of sources and Kesha and label.
 * Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release. For example, a future album whose article is titled "(Artist)'s Next Album" and consists solely of blog or fan forum speculation about possible titles, or songs that might be on the album, is a WP:CRYSTAL violation and should be discussed only in the artist's article, and even then only if there is some verifiable information about it." Same thing as above, its confirmed, i wrote it and its notable, in less then 24 hours i have more information then most albums get. -  (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 18:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I take it you didn't bother to read the part about this only applies to a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects—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. Anything can pass part of a guideline. How does this article stack up against that part of the guideline?&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I take it your taking that out of context, it actually says "In a few special cases, an unreleased album may qualify for an advance article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it—for example, Guns 'n Roses' 2008 album Chinese Democracy had an article as early as 2004. However, this only applies to a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects—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." According to this, the only thing were missing is tracklisting, defensibly not a Chrystal violation. And that paragraph is more so referring to an album years/ months away, not a month away. - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 19:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Advance" is "advance", be it years, months, or weeks. What you are missing is being an "exceptionally high-profile project": there's no reason to have an advance article on this at all, even if it had a tracklisting.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you don't like it, just silently walk away. There's no reason to return to an article that "shouldn't exist". Anyways, an alternative might be to place it in the Article Incubator, so certain people are appeased. Adam 94 (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * redirect, there is no way this should be deleted outright but yes its not quite notable yet. if one of its singles had charted or if we have a tracklisting i'd be screaming keep. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  22:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - there's a fair amount of coverage at the moment, and there should be more closer to the album's release in a month. – Chase  ( talk ) 22:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I don't think WP:NALBUM is an issue here, seeing as we already have the title and release date confirmed. – Chase  ( talk ) 22:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - There's plenty of sources and the album was confirmed. - Nickyp88 —Preceding undated comment added 01:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC).
 * Keep - I don't think this article should be deleted since the album is announced and also, it is confirmed that it will be releases on November 22, 2010. MacarangaChic (talk) 09:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - What everybody else said. Percxyz (Call me Percy,  it's easier) 09:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep Article has plenty of reliable sources to pass the GNG. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  11:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Snow keep Kww easily could add a "merge in" Kesha notice instead. Pass NAlbum, Hammer, Crystal, and other polices. Tb hotch Ta lk C. 18:18, 15 October 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.