Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Labyrinthes


 * 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. It would appear that there are some substantial reasons for keeping this article, as well as the obvious arguments to delete. If the album doesn't show up on the shelves after its alleged release date (tomorrow), then it would be reasonable to renominate the page. The sources are suboptimal, but also non-trivial. Stifle (talk) 12:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Labyrinthes

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

A future album with info just "leaked" into file sharing networks - 7-bubёn >t 07:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC) List of further references:      *Delete: WP:HAMMER. JamesBurns (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC) 
 * Delete per WP:NALBUMS - no release date, no reliable source. JohnCD (talk) 12:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm not sure what you are looking for, but I have got other sources if you'd like them. The band is pretty notable which is why I included a page for this album. I am also not entirely sure what JohnCD means by "no release date", it is clearly listed on the page and also all of these references provide the release date as well (although some of them say it is Feb 10, which is currently incorrect) Banjaloupe (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You write: "some of them say it is Feb 10, which is currently incorrect" - and how do you know that? That's the whole point of the rule "wikipedia is not a crystal ball": unless the band is huge and releases from a major label, the premature album articles are frowned upon in wikipedia: rumors which may me changed tomorrow is not what is to be written in an encyclopedia. In addition, since you seem to be rather new, please review the policies about what is accepted as a reliable source for wikipedia. - 7-bubёn >t 18:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I had looked at WP:NALBUMS and it said Once the artist or their record label has publicly confirmed the title, track listing and release date, an article about an album is not a WP:CRYSTAL violation. That is why I used the Dare to Care Records page as a source, even though that usually is not "reliable", since it would have to be used to show that this was not a "crystal ball" infraction. Furthermore, after checking the page, it does seem that Feb 10 is the correct release date! So that was my mistake and I will change it in the article. Banjaloupe (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete : per WP:HAMMER --JD554 (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am not sure why this applies, the name of the album is known, it's Labyrinthes! I'm sorry but I'm kind of confused... Banjaloupe (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, HAMMER doesn't apply, however I'm leaving my vote as delete because their is so little information in the article it just isn't worth keeping. Recreate when more information becomes available. --JD554 (talk) 07:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I still don't see how this applies, when the name is clearly known. Is there some generalization of usage that I'm missing here? Banjaloupe (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:HAMMER is not a policy. It is an essay, and people are citing it just for simplicity of voting. In this case I think the voters don't consider the sources reliable enough, since the band and label are not that big and all these announcements are just copy each other, with dates Feb. 10, 17, 19... Don't take this close to your heart; relax for 11 days and resubmit the article (if deleted; and maybe not) when the dust settles. - 7-bubёn >t 02:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess what I'm trying to figure out is why a band/label's own site is not reliable, and yet that is what is required to avoid a WP:CRYSTAL or WP:HAMMER infraction? In other words, is a reliable second-hand source enough to count as the band "publicly confirming" the album? For instance, Pitchfork mentions it on a list here, does that count? In any case, if it gets deleted now I'll certainly try again after the album release, I just want to know for my own good and to inform future edits. I hope I'm not being too annoying... Banjaloupe (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There are two separate issues involved: notability and reliability, which often mix and play in different proportions. Band's site as reliable, but if it is the sole source of info then notability is questioned, unless we are speaking of real big players. Pitchfork is just a compilation site which does not always show the source of the info, so there are problems of reliability (original source is better) and notablity: it lists everything it can lay their eye on (and this is good for its purpose). Wikipedia is more picky (and this is good for its purpose). To establish solid notability, nontrivial independent party coverage is required, which say much more than just "hey, these guys crawled from under the carpet once more and kicked the drum again." - 7-bubёn >t 20:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see! So I guess all I have now is some reliable information, but like JD554 also said above, there's not much to say about it now (aka it isn't notable). I guess then it makes more sense to delete the article until any major reviews come out. Thanks for the help! Banjaloupe (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  17:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Question: In what way has consensus not been reached here? Three editors have said delete, and given their reasons, and the one editor who originally wanted it kept finished their last edit with I guess then it makes more sense to delete the article until any major reviews come out. (diff). --JD554 (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The editors presented rather shallow arguments, including stand-alone links to WP:HAMMER, which is simply an essay. Thus, because AfD isn't a vote, it is impossible to determine consensus. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  18:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify for the next editor to look at this AfD with a view to closing: I agree with JohnCD's original comments in that the article contains no reliable sources to show notability and therefore fails WP:NALBUMS. --JD554 (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect back to parent article as a plausible search term. Even if it was released, it still doesn't pass notability per WP:MUSIC as it is little more than a tracklisting.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 21:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In response to Julian's comments above I'm recasting my vote here to clarify:


 * Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party notability WP:NALBUMS. JamesBurns (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: The album is indeed entitled Labyrinthes and will be released on February 10, 2009. Here are more 3rd-party info about the new album. Hroyer (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Bang Bang Té Mort
 * Journal Voir
 * Sympatico
 * Hroyer, I think the problem was that there is little to nothing to say about the album itself besides its release date and the tracklisting, which in and of themselves do not make the album notable. I am pretty sure that more will be published about Labyrinthes after the release date (reviews, the music video, etc) which would then make this article worthwhile. Banjaloupe (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So, the Porté Disparu music video, as well as a live version of Hérésie, came out recently. I added a music video section, which I'd encourage everyone to check out, since it might change your vote...? Banjaloupe (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources have been added, and remaining time until the album's release date is literally countable in hours. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep. Sources have been added, and the release is close enough that we can implement WP:IAR and let it stand for now. Malinaccier (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: I agree we should now WP:IAR, if the article gets deleted today it will only be re-created (legitimately) tomorrow. --JD554 (talk) 07:57, 9 February 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.