Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korn's ninth studio album (3rd nomination)


 * 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Korn's ninth studio album
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a reasonably well sourced article about an album that is already in production. Previously tagged with an invalid G4 by the nominator, and hasn't been properly AFD tagged in the article.--Michig (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I was kind of hoping that someone would fix it if they noticed it since I have no other choice besides to do it that way because subst:afdx links to the 2nd nomination. Also, I don't have the ability to view past versions. Bringing that stuff up is irrelevant. Joe Chill (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nomination, album fails WP:CRYSTAL just as it has in the previous two nominations! Large trout to Michig for pointing out that the AFD was broken without actually helping fix it.  (It has since been fixed.)  JBsupreme (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the article should be at AFD in the first place. Credit to JBsupreme for doing something constructive.--Michig (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "I don't think the article should be at AFD in the first place." That really is no excuse to complain about the AFD being wrong without fixing it or trying to fix it. Joe Chill (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's also not an excuse to bring up the invalid csd-g4 when you know that I'm not an admin. 16:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Where did I complain about it being wrong? I merely pointed out that the nomination had not been completed properly. Your not being an admin meant that you could not see for yourself whether this version was substantially identical to the previously-deleted version, but you tagged it anyway even though you had not yet had a reply to the question you raised regarding this at WP:ANI. Stop looking for an argument in every edit, it's becoming very disruptive.--Michig (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As the admin that declined his speedy tag, I have to say I don't have a problem with people G4 tagging articles like this where they have a reasonable suspicion that the article is a recreation of deleted material. A G4 tag is a request for admin attention, and it's up to the reviewing admin, with access to deleted revisions, to make the call. It was a perfectly valid use of a G4 tag, it just happened that the article was in fact substantially different. ~ mazca  talk 16:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, a G4 tag is a request for speedy deletion, not admin attention. Some admins would have taken the opportunity to delete the article simply because previous articles on the same subject have been deleted, so I'm grateful that you beat those admins to it. If there aren't better ways for editors to flag up articles that possibly need an admin to look at them than tagging them for speedy deletion, there certainly should be.--Michig (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that you were looking for an argument because you mentioned something that didn't need to be mentioned. You didn't need to whine about my mistake if you weren't planning on trying to fix it Why couldn't you just !vote keep instead of bringing up irrelevent stuff? Bringing that up was disruptive. The only reason why you're calling me disruptive is because I disagree with you. Heck, you even told me to go away one time because you said that I was a troll. Here is your complaint: "Previously tagged with an invalid G4 by the nominator, and hasn't been properly AFD tagged in the article". If you have a problem with something being wrong and you won't try to fix it, don't bring it up because it sounds like you're trying to make a point. I still didn't get an apology for that whole troll incident. Joe Chill (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Q.E.D.--Michig (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "which was to be demonstrated" Do you honestly want me to post the revisions? Joe Chill (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment from talk page: "You are not welcome here. Go away" And I'm the troll? Joe Chill (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I should think it's pointless and unconstructive to delete this at this stage. Korn aren't exactly a pub band, and it's not as if the album won't ever be released; there are real sources, and there's real notability here.  I can see some potential benefits in a merge to Korn, but whichever way this goes, it should be some variant of keep.— S Marshall  Talk /Cont  16:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. While it's true that a lot of articles about unnamed future albums are gratuitous WP:CRYSTAL violations; this one seems okay. It deals principally in verifiable facts supported by reliable sources; and there seems to be a fairly good pile of usable, encyclopedic information available - enough to warrant a separate article rather than a paragraph in Korn. WP:CRYSTAL primarily refers to excessive and/or unverifiable speculation - this does not seem to be either. ~ mazca  talk 16:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NALBUMS and WP:HAMMER, or possibly speedy delete g4 (compare Articles for deletion/Korn's ninth studio album (2nd nomination) (deleting this article) with WP:RECREATE (setting conditions for recreation)). - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It can't be deleted for recreation. Because The 2nd nomination was September 10th 2008, so the amount of information had obviously been increased, and is now an actual article, plus the article was going to recreated when more info became available no matter what. Just saying. KMFDM FAN  (talk!) 01:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Citing WP:HAMMER is pretty irrelevant, isn't it? It's not an actual policy, so citing it for the deletion is completely invalid; especially in this case. Production for this album has started, the headman already has conceived and publicly explained what he plans to do lyrically, they've evidently already finished two or three songs, while having potentially 15 or 16 rough concepts for songs. The fact that a title hasn't been announced, therefore, is irrelevant; the article should stay solely on the content it does have, not because of the content it doesn't. The   Guy  (edits) 02:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Further comment - Also, as a note, WP:NALBUMS generally supports keeping this article: "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. Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." That's saying, in other words, unreleased albums with bad sourcing are generally not notable. It also says, for that matter, that generally if the artist is notable, then so is the album; and also that the album may still be notable, despite being unreleased, if it's got good sourcing. This album is both by an artist considered widely notable, and has sufficient independent sourcing to imply its notability. Therefore, this article is simply supported by the two guidelines you cited. The   Guy  (edits) 02:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Citing an essay is quite normal at AfD, and is taken to mean that the citing user agrees with the reasoning in the essay. It's a shortcut to avoid re-typing a lot of material.  Even though I disagree with Simon Dodd in this case, I think he should not be admonished for citing an essay in his answer.— S Marshall  Talk /Cont  09:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As S Marshall says, linking to a page as a shorthand is not forbidden at AFD. But I agree that policy doesn't support the deletion talked about in WP:HAMMER here. There are multiple sources discussing this subject, from which an in-depth article can clearly be constructed.  The fact that the verifiable content that can be constructed doesn't match some arbitrary pattern doesn't warrant deletion.  Like  this is a demonstration of why when all one has is a WP:HAMMER often too many things look like nails. (A careful reading of WP:HAMMER shows that it itself doesn't actually support the blanket deletion of all "X's Nth studio album" articles.  Ironically, a blanket application is a misapplication of the essay.) Uncle G (talk) 10:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not only is it fine to cite an essay as persuasive authority, as S Marshall and Uncle G point out, HAMMERTIME is extremely widely-cited at AFD, see . As to NALBUMS, you are quoting it only in part. You concede that it says "unreleased albums are in general not notable." It goes on to underline, however, that "[i]n a few special cases, an unreleased album may qualify for an advance article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it ... [but] this only applies to a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects." Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis: if we know that unreleased albums are generally not notable, but that some very rare, special cases are, we can be sure that in the mine run of cases, unreleased albums are not notable. This album is not "special" or "exceptionally high profile"; certainly not in the sense that Chinese Democracy (the given example) was, perpetually on hold, and no one has offered any reason to believe that it is. NALBUMS tells us that "[s]eparate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release." I don't think there is sufficient reliably sourced information to clear that hurdle; the soundest basis for your position is to argue that there is sufficient material, and that is a respectable enough position - but a far cry from erroneously claiming, as you do, that "WP:NALBUMS generally supports keeping this article." - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I just want to set it straight that I wasn't trying to admonish Simon Dodd for linking to an essay (as I know that is allowed), but I was simply trying to point out that that particular essay seems to hold no authority in this specific case. As for WP:NALBUMS, you're right; I didn't quote it entirely (I skimmed and must have missed the later mention of pre-album notability. Sorry). That does seem pretty solid, however, it just seems like another blanket ban to me ("if it doesn't live up to X standard, it's gotta go"). This article is certainly too large to fit in a section on another article, but according to that policy it would seem to be too small for its own article, so where does it belong, then? I think we need to define "sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information". On a different note, we should also define "exceptionally high profile" and "special;" these are again, things the policy leaves its editors to make a consensus on case-to-case. I've seen plenty of pre-release articles that aren't exceptionally high-profile, but they have gotten to stay because they have a plethora of good information. It just seems absurd to me that this can't have its own article when we can pull up a bunch of relevant information on it. The   Guy  (edits) 19:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The content here now is not identical to the content deleted in September 2008. Uncle G (talk) 10:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that the article was previously deleted in September 2008 and now cites eleven sources, at least ten of which are from 2009, there is no way that this could possibly be deletable as a G4.--Michig (talk) 11:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. While I often nominate articles for this same reason, this article shows a great amount of information about the album. There is no name or track list released, but there is a lot of information about the styles and lyrical themes of this album. I could understand this being an AFD if there was little to no context, or if it was confirming that there was going to be a 9th SA, but this article goes much more in depth. The Weak Willed 17:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment also looking back at Chinese Democracy the early versions had not much more than what this article has (except a title). Yes I know, otherstuffexists, but just bring up that as a point. The Weak Willed 17:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:HAMMER etc etc etc Not enough info yet. Wait a bit longer. Rafablu88  17:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not everything is a nail. This article isn't.  Uncle G (talk) 10:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- seems to meet exception 1 of WP:CRYSTAL "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Umbralcorax (talk) 21:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article is well-sourced, and is validly potentially start- or C-class. As I stated in my above comment, album is moving along nicely; they have 15 or 16 rough songs, with 2 or 3 finished songs; the lyrical themes have already been explained (and sourced); a rough release date has been given. To top it all, the band has announced its method for recording. It's very well-sourced, well-documented, and well-organized. The sourcing clearly prevents it from violating WP:CRYSTAL: the article simply states what its sources do, it never strays from that, so Wikipedia is not predicting the future, although the sources might be. However, I believe WP:CRYSTAL states that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; while it says nothing about sources. As for WP:HAMMER, again, the information available regarding the production and the themes and the release of this album completely render WP:HAMMER irrelevant; whether or not the album has a title does not directly limit or enhance content, and should therefore not restrict content allowed here. That's all. Keep; it's well-sourced, and it's not violating anything. The   Guy  (edits) 02:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Some reliable sources, some of them aren't. No track list, no release date. Fails WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL (again). Niteshift36 (talk) 12:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't fail WP:CRYSTAL. Nor, indeed, does it "fail" WP:HAMMER (which doesn't actually set out the rule that you think it does).  I suggest a careful reading of both, paying attention to what the former says about verifiability and original research and to what the latter does not say about blanket rules.  "No track list, no release date." is not a rationale supported by any policy, from WP:CRYSTAL to deletion policy.  Uncle G (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does fail CRYSTAL. And I know that HAMMER is an essay, but I don't care if HAMMER is a policy or an essay, this fails it and citing this as failing it is simply a shortcut to avoid a lot of extensive typing. Of course you know it's a shortcut and are just being disruptive and argumentative. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply: No, it does not fail WP:CRYSTAL. So far, the production of the album is well-documented, and we don't predict anything the sources don't. We're perfectly in-line with WP:CRYSTAL.  The   Guy  (edits) 02:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course you know it's a shortcut and are just being disruptive and argumentative. &mdash; I said nothing about shortcuts there, as you can see by actually reading what is written. I encouraged you to read the policy and the essays that you are citing, because they don't actually say what you obviously think them to say.  I encourage you a second time, repeating the enouragement that you are given below by another editor, to familiarize yourself with what WP:CRYSTAL policy actually is, and what it is aimed at, and what rule of thumb WP:HAMMER in fact sets out.  Again, your "no track list, no release date" rationale is supported by neither one, nor is it supported by deletion policy or any other policy.  Please actually read and familiarize yourself with both what policies actually say and what is actually written in this discussion.  Uncle G (talk) 01:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources people. It isn't WP:Crystal if it backed up with reliable sources. KMFDM FAN  (talk!) 16:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The editors arguing for delete have failed to take the time to actually read WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL.  Sadly, they appear not even to have read as far as the third sentence of either page.  For the policy, we'll note "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced."  That's what this article does. --JayHenry (talk) 05:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Even more sadly, you can't accept that people disagree with you without making assumptions about how much they've read. There is no title. There is no planned release date. There is no track list. There is a promise that there will be an ablum called something, with some yet to be determined songs on it as some future date. And that is all your sources are reporting....something they can't name, containing something they don't know and arriving at some point they can't specify. That's a lot of unknowns to be in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to be blunt, but you are confirming my assertion. I am not assuming you have failed to read them, I am observing that you have failed to read them.  I obviously agree that there is no planned release date, title and no track list.  But if you would successfully  read the links for WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL, you would see that neither has those as any sort of necessary or sufficient condition for the article to be deleted.  For CRYSTAL, the actual policy, your arguments are not even relevant.  You seem to claim that we "disagree" whether or not your arguments are grounded in the essay.  True enough.  This is the same sort of disagreement where I say the sky is full of air and you say the sky is full of spidermonkeys.  It's true that we disagree, but you would also be empirically incorrect. --JayHenry (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you aren't as correct as you think you are. Unfortunately, you have displayed such an inordinate amount of arrogance and self-delusion that it is clear that further discussion with you is absolutely pointless. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue here is that Crystal says "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced" and Hammer says "There are occasional exceptions to this law, as sometimes a future album will contain enough verifiable information for a decent article even if the title is not known." You can call me arrogant, if you like, but why not instead address that the text of the pages you're citing in your argument do not support your argument and in fact support the views of those with whom you disagree?  Or, just more simply, what is unreferenced? --JayHenry (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm finding Niteshift36's arguments quite entertaining. His argument is so solid that he doesn't have to elaborate upon it at all for it to be true, and this JayHenry comes and tries to explain supposed faults, giving examples and a well-supported argument, and so he's the arrogant one. Because he explained the faults. Hahhhh. Niteshift36, get over yourself. JayHenry has dismantled your assertions legitimately, and he might have been wrong in assuming you didn't read your cited arguments, and he might have offended you. Fair enough. However, it is obvious that you haven't understood what you've read. Hammer's Law does indeed say "If the name of a future album is not yet known, the album is very likely to see its page deleted from Wikipedia." That's fair enough; however, you might as well cite that one sentence, and not the entire essay. Further, the essay continues, "There are occasional exceptions to this law, as sometimes a future album will contain enough verifiable information for a decent article even if the title is not known. But if all you can do is look into a crystal ball or base your information off rumors posted to message boards, blogs or MySpace, then it's best not to create a page on the album until it's at least within a week or two of release." Nothing about it being absolutely necessary to delete a page if it has no title, track listing, or release date. Therefore, your rationale is not supported by that essay: It cites that there can be exceptions, you do not. The crystal ball, now, is something you have a completely wrong idea about. You say, "[...]that is all your sources are reporting....something they can't name, containing something they don't know and arriving at some point they can't specify. That's a lot of unknowns to be in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia." That is, again, your own agenda, not one supported by any of your cited arguments. We are not looking into the crystal ball to predict anything. These are unknowns you yourself are creating of thin air: does the article attempt to answer them? No, it doesn't. The article uses verifiable information to detail the production (thus far) and the revealed themes of an in-process project. Nowhere does our friendly crystal ball policy say "if too many things that are standard are unknown about an album, then an article shouldn't be there." It says, basically, if all we can do is predict things with unreliable sources, then the article shouldn't be there. We are not doing that. Should we rename the article "Production of Korn's ninth studio album" until we get what you desire? No, I don't think so. Bottom line, there is too much information for it to be anywhere else but in its own relevant article. Just because your own delusional standards don't support that idea, it doesn't mean we delete the page. By your standards, if we have a really well-documented album complete with a complete Production section, a complete Themes section, a complete Personnel section, a complete Reception section, etc, etc, it should still be deleted if it doesn't have three things: a title, a track listing, and a release date. How absurd is that? Really, completely. As JayHenry said, please re-examine these arguments of yours, factoring in the exceptions this time; which you've thus far failed to note.  The   Guy  (edits) 20:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Or even the first sentence of WP:CRYSTAL. The Weak Willed 16:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I think theres enough decent information for a keep. The album will be out soon aswell. Portillo (talk) 05:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We should wait until the album comes out (and has a title) before we publish an article about it here. In this encyclopedia. JBsupreme (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that could be the case if the article was just a couple sentences, saying nothing more then the album is going to be released, but this article has a lot more information then that, (it has much more information then other korn album articles.) What I'm saying is: if it's well sourced, and has a good amount of useful information, the fact that it has no tittle [yet] really shouldn't be that much of an issue. KMFDM FAN  (talk!) 02:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I think this article is notable, contains reliable sources and doesnt contain any crystal balling. As simple as that.... Roger Workman (talk) 13:44, 20 August 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.