Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muse's fifth studio 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   delete without prejudice to recreation of the content under (presumably under a different name!) once the album is officially released  nancy  (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

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

No name, no release date, currently being recorded - there are a few sources but I question whether there is encylopedic value in having an article on an album that doesn't exist. Naerii 00:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete until such a time as the album's title, tracklist or first single, and specific release date can be provided from reliable sources independant of the band and the record company. -- saberwyn 00:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: (I'm the article's creator, just to make it clear). Where's the deletion rationale? "Encyclopedic value" is entirely subjective, and anything not encyclopedic on the basis that it doesn't belong here encompasses every single reason on why something may be a candidate for deletion, yet not a single one has been put forward. WilliamH (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 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., if you want a policy based reason, but really, the silliness of having an article on something that doesn't exist and may not exist from quite some time is in itself a reason to delete. Naerii 01:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And furthermore: "Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources and should use the tag." Naerii 01:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, fails notability per WP:CRYSTAL & WP:MUSIC.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 01:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Sorry WilliamH but the precedent is to delete until there is more info. As well it should be.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 02:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - needs a title, a tracklisting, and a source to pass WP:CRYSTAL --T-rex 04:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Untitled future albums should be speedily deleted.  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:CRYSTAL = no unverifiable speculation. Since all the information here is verified, WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. For this reason (and this is not a WP:WAX based argument), the "silliness of having an article on something that doesn't exist" cannot be a legitimate deletion rationale when it is completely acceptable to have articles on upcoming things, and the subject certainly is of wide enough notable interest to merit an article had it already occurred. WilliamH (talk) 13:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You notice how all the products in that category have names? And if you're resorting to a policy-based argument (ick), what response do you have to my quotes from WP:MUSIC? Naerii 13:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  14:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles"
 * A moot point. That's in reference to released albums, which the subject isn't.


 * "Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources and should use the future-album tag."
 * Yes, the release dates of albums must be confirmed by reliable sources. Another moot point - this album doesn't have a release date. We can't add one if it doesn't have one.


 * Whatever a subject may or may not be called is inconsequential, so long as it isn't unverified speculation. Saying an album might be called this/that/the other and this might be a song on the album without any verification would be problematic. Since the article doesn't do this, WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. The fact that it does not have a name is irrelevant, because no unsourced speculative name is given, which would be crystal balling. It is the merits of arguments that will manifest the outcome of this discussion, so as much as I hate to break down such policies so systematically (it is the spirit of them I find most important than pedantically following them to the hilt), of course I'm 'resorting' to a policy based argument.


 * MUSIC also says that unreleased albums generally aren't notable, but may be, however, "if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources". This has, and its name is clearly not intrinsic to the fact that all the points of contention are verifiable independent coverage from several sources, asserting notability on a subject which would clearly warrant its own article had it already occurred. WilliamH (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. This definitely does not fail WP:CRYSTAL as I understand it: the article contains well-sourced information about an event that is notable, by virtue of the band's fame, and almost certain to take place. I have sympathy with both arguments regarding WP:MUSIC, but I thought I should add my interpretation of CRYSTAL. If this is deleted, I would like to suggest that a note is made, mental or otherwise, that a lot of the current content could be usefully used in a future "production/creation" type section for the article. Rje (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per multiple precedents re WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V, etc.


 * 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.