Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danger Days: True Lives of the Fabulous Killjoys


 * 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. WP:EFFORT is not a valid reason to keep, but there are indeed reliable sources to prove some of the material in the article. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Danger Days: True Lives of the Fabulous Killjoys

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )


 * Delete - Little to nothing is known about the album. The band memebers have not been confirmed, and the situation involving the presumed drummer (who recently quit the band), is unclear. No drummer is listed in the article as of now. There is no artwork, track listing, and the November release date is subject to change. The title was announced just yesterday, and there is very little to warrant a new article this soon. And, I might add, the band themselves have not confirmed anything yet according to NME Magazine here. Friginator (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The title has now been confirmed on the band's YouTube page, but the article title is still slightly off. It should read Danger Days: The True Lives of the Fabulous Killjoys, but the two "the"s are missing as of right now. Friginator (talk) 00:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect – Delete – If the title was actually confirmed I would suggest just a simple redirect for the time being until notability is established. All of the sources describe this title as rumored and/or unconfirmed, and Wikipedia is not the place for such speculation. Online retailers are horrible sources of information. There may be enough information to write a reasonably detailed recording history section on the upcoming album by My Chemical Romance, whatever the title ends up being, but unless someone takes the time to do so this article should not exist. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Revising statement: The band has now released an album teaser that confirms this title . There is still not enough information for a full-fledged article yet, but it would be nice to keep the namespace for anyone searching for this album. So now I vote redirecting to My Chemical Romance. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect as article fails notability criteria for albums and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. TenPoundHammer's Law can applied as well, because title tracklist and relaease date of the album was not confirmed by the band. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  05:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The title has just been confirmed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63lyA42Y6ug&feature=sub —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fayiirah (talk • contribs) 22:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The title is slightly different, making the article title incorrect. According to the YouTube comment (which is what we have to go by at this point), The True Lives of the Fabulous Killjoys is the name. Friginator (talk) 00:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep — The article does meet the notability guidelines. Reprise Records, the band's label, has confirmed the name to MTV (see here). – Zntrip 07:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It takes a lot more than a confirmed title to meet the notability guidelines. Fezmar9 (talk) 11:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, but there is a very high probability that this album will be released in the near future. It's name has been confirmed by the band, the band confirmed the album is complete, a marketing campaign is in the works, and a November release date has been reported by multiple independent sources. Also the band itself meets the notability guidelines. To quote from Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums, singles and songs: "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. ... In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." By these standards the album is notable. The nominator's main reason for nomination was basically that there isn't enough information about the album. But it seems a bit ridiculous to me to delete an article that will grow to substantial size within a few weeks. We could delete it now and remake the article in a couple weeks, but what's the point? The evidence for imminent release of the album and of the notability of the article are both overwhelming. – Zntrip 06:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The guidelines you are quoting make it quite clear that this article should not exist yet. Specifically in the quote you provided it states that the album must have significant coverage through reliable sources, it must already have been released, and even then it says the album only may be notable. Two paragraphs down the guideline outlines how to handle future albums: "Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources. 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." "It's best not to create a page on the album until you've got something more to say. Wikipedia isn't going anywhere; it's not going to hurt you to wait". It should also be noted that the release date was provided by an online retailer. Just for kicks, Google "August 31" "Screaming Bloody Murder" "Sum 41". You will find a number of sources that claimed Sum 41's new album Screaming Bloody Murder will be released on August 31, a release date that was traced back to Amazon.com. However by this date the album was still in production, and has yet to see an official release date or confirmation from the label. It looks like most of the larger media outlets like Rolling Stone and Spin were wise and have since retracted the statements, but others from medium sized publications like Exclaim!, Chart and AltPress are still around, and I am not entirely sure what Tower Records is selling to people. Fezmar9 (talk) 10:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You are ignoring some of the basic facts that I had previously listed: 1) the artist has confirmed via their official Web site that the album is complete; 2) multiple sources have listed November 22 as the release date, such as the print edition of Rolling Stone; 3) a marketing campaign is already under way; and 4) the name of the album has been officially confirmed by the band and record label. This is sufficient evidence to conclude that a release is likely to be imminent. There is also enough to establish that the article is notable. What I quoted does not preclude the creation of an article until the album has been released. The article also satisfies the conditions you have listed. The last sentence you quoted does not apply at all since this article is not solely the product of idle speculation and does not have the title My Chemical Romance's next album. – Zntrip 18:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm ignoring some of your "basic facts" because there needs to be a lot more before this article needs to exist. I'm fully aware of everything you listed, it's just not enough. There either needs to be enough officially confirmed basic information for a start class article (at least a confirmed title, release date, track listing and cover) or enough information for a reasonably detailed article. For example, ten months before the official release of Radiohead's In Rainbows the article (here) contained a detailed multi-paragraph page with a lot of information. It had too much information to have on Radiohead's article, thus a separate article was warranted even before a title and release date were known. I fully acknowledge that this album, will meet the given guidelines at some point, but that point is not right now. If the information that's currently in this article were merged with My Chemical Romance, literally nothing would be lost. Also, as of yesterday (here) that last line directly applied to this article, as 90% of it consisted of unsourced song titles. And by removing this speculation there is even less to be said of this album. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Even though the Album has not been officially released of yet, the album still exists, and has for a long time. There have already been trailers of the album  which also appears on the official band homepage.  On top of that, there are multiple confirmed tour dates, named "Danger Days, world contamination tour"  which directly relates to the name of the album "Danger Days, the true lives of the fabulous killjoys" thus verifying its validity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.209.203 (talk • contribs)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep — The album is close enough to release that deleting and rewriting in a month would be a waste of time and resources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.28.53 (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The album title and tracklisting has been released, as well as with a release date. Why waste time making it again? Jakisbak (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Everything has been confirmed by the band, but while we're not here predicting the future, it's actually not a requirement that the band themselves releases the information if it still comes from a credible source. Given that the band has subsequently done so, don't you now think it was in fact a credible source? --121.214.3.206 (talk) 22:37, 23 September 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.