Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mirage (Armin van Buuren album)


 * 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   keep.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 01:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Mirage (Armin van Buuren album)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Doesn't qualify under A7 A9, as the artist has a page. I simply don't think this album is notable enough on its own to warrant an article, especially since it hasn't been released yet. Seems like a bit of WP:CBALL here. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 18:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Non-notable future album.    Snotty Wong   gab 20:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or Incubate. We have title, release date, artwork, and tracklisting. It's bound to be 'notable' nearer to its release date (7 weeks time) if it isn't already. There's already a fair amount around of Google News. --Michig (talk) 07:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Bound to be notable" = WP:CBALL &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 13:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a future album, but no we're not peering into a crystal ball for any of this - we know the release date, artwork and tracklisting. The artist is certainly notable and yes, the album will be, and an article will be justified in 6 or 7 weeks time. If 6 or 7 weeks is too long to wait then send it to the article incubator so that it can be worked on until then.--Michig (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But there's no indication why this album is notable. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 13:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * From WP:MUSIC: "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". Common sense should suggest that this album will receive sufficient coverage to be considered notable.--Michig (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Operative words: may have sufficient notability. Doesn't mean "does have". &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 15:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Then what is your reason for claiming it "does not have"? Rlendog (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Because the article claims none. The article only talks about existence, not importance. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 10:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It claims to be an album by a notable artist. That is already a claim of importance. Rlendog (talk) 00:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll admit some concern over the lack of external sources, but with a notable artist, a title and a track listing, it seems to have enough to stick, even under WP:HAMMER. Rlendog (talk) 01:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - The nominator may have doomed this AfD because by declining the A7 stating the artist has a page which suggests that the artist is notable. Furthermore, WP:CBALL states, "Examples of appropriate topics include the 2012 U.S. presidential election" which is more than one year away. This album is less than three months and as per another editor, release date, artwork and tracklisting is available. moreno oso (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this at all. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 16:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - per WP:MUSIC and WP:CBALL. Both state and I quote CBALL, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". As per previous posts in this AfD, this album is scheduled. moreno oso (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per moreno oso and Michig. This album is an upcoming album by Armin van Buuren (one of the best known Trance DJs in the world btw) so there will be an article for this album in the furture. Even this album (or compilation?) is not released yet the article should be expanded instead of geting deleted --D-Kuru (talk) 19:14, 29 July 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.