Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music Is the Weapon (2nd 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 keep. Consensus herein is for the article to be retained. North America1000 05:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Music Is the Weapon
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article invites additions of hoax and unsourced content and the album hasn't released yet after three years. In the previous AFD, an editor argued that sources such as are sufficient for the article to pass the WP:GNG. However, these are just passing mentions about an unreleased Major Lazer album reportedly titled "Music Is the Weapon". These sources do not discuss the subject significantly or in-depth, which is required by the GNG. The content is better off merged into the band's article per WP:NALBUMS, which states "a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography," and per WP:FUTUREALBUMS - "an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label." The track listing is still incomplete for this album and there is no confirmed release date. Flooded  with them hundreds 07:56, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: I've got this in my watchlist: there's a bit of vandalism etc., but not much. For notability, rather than just looking at the four sources mentioned in the last AfD, just search for it in Google: this album has generated a lot of ongoing speculation in reliable music news sources (i.e. many articles just about the album, not just passing mentions), passing GNG, and I would agree with from the last AfD that it's comparable to WP:FUTUREALBUMS' Chinese Democracy example (and note that the WP:FUTUREALBUMS quote mentioned above is prefixed by "generally", as well as the example I mentioned for high profile unreleased albums – the purpose of this guideline seems to be for cases where fans of a minor band start an article when there's nothing to say yet – the expansive coverage in this case makes me think it doesn't apply). The article is already beyond a stub, so WP:NALBUMS' "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography" is passed too. &#8209;&#8209; Yodin T 11:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per my argument in the last AFD just a couple months ago. Entire articles dedicated to the subject by extremely high level sources like Billboard and MTV are enough to pass the WP:GNG. Much of the rest of the nomination is irrelevant - we don’t delete articles just because of the hypothetical concern of fake release dates (that’s something that happens in virtually every article about a commercial product, and it’s an invalid WP:NOTCLEANUP argument.) Additionally, it’s already expanded beyond a stub, so that concern isn’t relevant either. Sergecross73   msg me  13:15, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * From the first section, just the following paragraph has relevance to the album: Major Lazer revealed their fourth album would be called Music Is the Weapon... stated in an interview with Billboard: I shifted my goal to just make singles, because no one really buys our albums, leading the magazine to conclude that Music Is the Weapon may never be released and that Major Lazer will instead periodically release individual songs from the recording sessions.[8] Reports surfaced in January 2018 that the album would be released the following March,[9][10] but it remains unreleased as of September 2018. Most of the content is about alleged songs/singles from the album not the album itself. It's still stubby and could be better off in the band's article. Flooded  with them hundreds  13:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Songs...discussed in the context of the album. And the albums almost 10k. “Stubby” is a reach. Sergecross73   msg me  18:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Still not about the album though. The fact there isn't sufficient content explicitly about the album itself, shows it doesn't satisfactorily meet the WP:GNG and WP:FUTUREALBUMS. Chinese Democracy, months before its release, already had a full non-stub article about the album, so it isn't a great comparison. Also, Major Lazer is just a small side project of Diplo, it's not as big as the Beatles or anything. I wouldn't call this a high-profile release. Flooded  with them hundreds  10:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Youre cherry-picking difs. Chinese Democracy existed as a stub years before the albums release. And again, this article is already expanded beyond a stub. And being an exact 1:1 comparison to Guns N Roses is not the goal - the point is that it’s getting very high level, dedicated, reliable source coverage, from a musician with a history of internationally charting material. Sergecross73   msg me  14:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "Major Lazer is just a small side project of Diplo"... woah, hang on there, - I don't think it's unreasonable to state that the name "Major Lazer" is far more recognised worldwide than Diplo's name, and he certainly hasn't had anything like the worldwide no. 1 successes of "Lean On" or "Light It Up" under his own name... I think it's disingenuous to suggest Major Lazer is just "a small side project". Richard3120 (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Frustrated Comment - This discussion will go around in circles interminably, and I know because I was the nominator for the first AfD on this album. The problem is that Wikipedia policy does not acknowledge different types of "not yet released" albums, so arguments for both keeping and deleting this one can be backed up by policy. On multiple occasions I have suggested a new policy that differentiates a future album, with sources confirming that it will really be released on a certain date, from a conjectured album that has been discussed in the press but with no confirmation that it will actually be released, even if the artist or record company said that it has been cancelled or delayed indefinitely. Current Wikipedia policy considers all of these to be "future" albums, and my requests for something new and improved were met with the exact type of circular discussion that we have above. See this for example. Nobody is going to budge on this one. And by the way, I still think Music Is the Weapon should be deleted as something that does not and never will exist, but according to current policy it's notable because it has been discussed in the press. --- <b style="color: DarkOrchid"> DOOMSDAYER 520</b> (Talk&#124;Contribs) 13:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I will concede that it is frustrating to be discussing this yet again. I'm not sure why the nominator felt this needed to be reopened again so quickly. Its only been a couple months since the last time we discussed it, and nothing has changed at all, in either the subject's status or Wikipedia guidelines on how to handle this. Sergecross73   msg me  15:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Per this - "Genius has since taken down the album's release date and removed a number of the tracks from the page. Sources now say the information originally posted was inaccurate" shows that a number of reliable sources are retracting their articles because they were initially based on the Genius' report, which is now proven inaccurate. There is no good reason to keep this article which has been stubby with poor content for few years. I'm not seeing how this passes the WP:GNG because most of the sources are only passing mentions (i.e. the title of this album is Music Is the Weapon, the release date of Music Is the Weapon is unconfirmed). After cleaning up the article by removing content with iTunes sources, the article is just a single paragraph with an infobox. I don't see why this cannot be placed in the group's article. It only encourages fans to add unsourced content and unconfirmed tracks. <u style="font:1.1em/1em Arial Black"><u style="color:#7f2ed1">Flooded <u style="color:#bfa6d8"> with them <u style="color:#7f2ed1">hundreds  07:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, you're making a lot sweeping generalizations that aren't really reflective of reality here. Dedicated sources =/= passing mentions, and sources writing retractions/updates to their articles doesn't change the fact that the coverage happened. Additionally, information being retracted doesn't mean automatic deletion - retractions can be worth mentioning as well. Sergecross73   msg me  12:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Serge, you are a respected longtime colleague and you know what you're talking about with WP policies. But the nominator is not the only one making generalizations. If I read your comments correctly, you contend that any media comments on how the album won't be released are merely speculation. Well, media comments that it will be released are also speculation. What's the difference? The album's existence is pure speculation all the way, even in that Forbes article below. Therefore it does not exist and can be mentioned as a historical development at the artist's article. --- <b style="color: DarkOrchid"> DOOMSDAYER 520</b> (Talk&#124;Contribs) 13:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're quite following what I was trying to convey. To clarify, as long as the content is reliably sourced and directly attributed to the reliable sources, I'm not particularly opposing any content's inclusion. I don't care if we have 20 reliable sources writing dedicated articles saying the album doesn't exist or will never release. They're still providing coverage that satisfies the WP:GNG. Perhaps you misunderstood my comments about handling retractions/updates? My point was, lets say a source reports something, then retracts it later. The nominator is proposing erasing any mention of it at all. I'm proposing tweaking the wording to "X was initially reported, but later clarified as false" or whatever prose one would use to capture what happened. It's not that I'm trying to capture one side of the story, but actually both sides, that it was both reported and then revised. Sergecross73   msg me  14:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Here's another source written this year (showing its not only getting coverage, but sustained coverage over time), by Forbes, written by Hugh McIntyre a writer who has previously written for Billboard, MTV, Fuse, and a bunch of others - definitely a professional writer/journalist. Sergecross73   msg me  12:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Here's a running list of sources writing dedicated articles about the album, all sources from WP:RSMUSIC.
 * 1) (2015) Exclaim
 * 2) (2017) DJ Mag
 * 3) (2018) Billboard
 * 4) (2018) MTV
 * 5) (2018) Forbes
 * 6) (2018) Las Vegas Weekly  Sergecross73   msg me  13:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Except for #5-6, this is the same list of sources used in the last AfD. The first four all predicted possible release dates for the album that have long since come and gone. The two newer articles merely ask the musician where the album is, perhaps missing the musician's own announcement months ago that it will never be released. They may be at reliable sources but they still have to do their research. --- <b style="color: DarkOrchid"> DOOMSDAYER 520</b> (Talk&#124;Contribs) 13:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the first four sources are what kept the article from being deleted in the first AFD, I did not mean to have it look otherwise, I was just starting up a running total, which wasn't present anywhere at this AFD. Your comments on the two new sources are irrelevant though - speculation on whether or not the reliable sources "did their research" doesn't affect notability discussions, nor is a release required for a subject to be notable. Its enough that these reliable sources wrote articles about the album. I'm not arguing for or against the probability of the album being released - its not the time or the place for that - I'm arguing it meets the WP:GNG. Sergecross73   msg me  13:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There's nothing ham-fisted about my removing of unsourced and poorly-written content that is blatant WP:BOMBARDMENT. The listed songs are singles but not off the album, thus do not belong in this article. Moreover, there are no confirmed track listing and release date, failing WP:FUTUREALBUM in which the exception "very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects" likely isn't for an album like this by a music group whose studio albums, mixtapes and EPs have never charted in the US top ten. There are a bunch of reliable sources but they only exist because the album is by Major Lazer not because the work is truly notable by itself. Let's not sabotage quality in favor of influencing the outcome of this AfD. <u style="font:1.1em/1em Arial Black"><u style="color:#7f2ed1">Flooded <u style="color:#bfa6d8"> with them <u style="color:#7f2ed1">hundreds  13:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, much of it was very much so ham-fisted. Yes, there is no confirmed track listing, but there are many reliable sources that report the songs in relation to potentially being on the album. I don't care if you remove the iTunes sources or whatever, I'm not trying to pack the refs with junk like that. But hacking all the prose out of the article about the songs, when the sources mention them in the context of the album, is fundamentally wrong. Sergecross73   msg me  14:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, it looks more like the iTunes sources were just there for release details more than anything, but it's fine, they can be easily replaced. Like this Rolling Stone source, which mentions its release in respect of being a potential track on the album. Thank you, sources like this are actually much better. Sergecross73   msg me  14:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Potentially being on the album ≠ being on the album! This is an encyclopedia not a fan site, it is ridiculous to include existing unrelated songs and call them singles from the album simply because some sources say they could be. If there's insufficient material solely about the album, content about possible songs in the context of the album is unnecessary and shouldn't be in the article per WP:PROPORTION. Unless sources call them singles from this particular album, they should be removed. The Rolling Stone piece was written in 2016, obviously outdated so it cannot be used to support the claim. <u style="font:1.1em/1em Arial Black"><u style="color:#7f2ed1">Flooded <u style="color:#bfa6d8"> with them <u style="color:#7f2ed1">hundreds  15:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

If reliable sources cover the songs in relation to the album (they do), then so do we. In theory, you can add things like "as of 2016" to the end of things if there are actual doubts about info being outdated, but the Forbes and a number of the other sources still make the claim in in 2017 (Rolling Stone - 2017) and 2018 (Complex - 2018, Idolator - 2018), so that wouldn't be appropriate when the only doubt appears to be your own personal speculation. Sources frequently and consistently associate them to the album, so their discussion in the article is fair game, provided the proper context is given. I've reworked the wording and added these new sources to better articulate this. Sergecross73  msg me  16:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A Plea to Admins - As you can clearly see above, this discussion is not only interminable but it's also pitting brother against brother. What we have here is not just an unreleased album but also a blaring example of conflicting policies. For this album, WP policies support both deleting it and keeping it. But this is just one example of a growing trend, especially in rap/R&B, in which a so-called upcoming album is announced but then never happens for years and years. Here are just a few additional examples of the trend: The Baddest (Davido album), Fantasea II: The Second Wave, El Disco Duro, The One (Trina album), The Queen Is Here, Street King Immortal.
 * So should it actually have its own article as an "album" that exists, or simply be mentioned in the musician's biography as a project that got started but never finished? The answer is: "who the hell knows?" In the past I have called for some sort of policy solution to alleviate this disconnect, to no avail. Admins, please initiate a new policy discussion in the appropriate forum, and I will be there with bells on. --- <b style="color: DarkOrchid"> DOOMSDAYER 520</b> (Talk&#124;Contribs) 13:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Better sourced than most articles that have never seen an AfD, let alone two. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems I need to be more clear for some editors. The article meets WP:GNG and so should be kept. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - For what it’s worth, the article was recently updated with this source an interview released within the last month stating that the album is scheduled for 2019 now. Sergecross73   msg me  18:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - definitely passes WP:MUSIC. Ilovereo222 (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Great! Pile-on from the music WikiProject. <u style="font:1.1em/1em Arial Black"><u style="color:#7f2ed1">Flooded <u style="color:#bfa6d8"> with them <u style="color:#7f2ed1">hundreds 05:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, you’ve been told by multiple people that this nomination was a bad idea, and then you were the one who asked them for more input anyways. That’s what happens when you do that... Sergecross73   msg me  13:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: on a basic level, this article passes WP:GNG. We cannot say at present that the album has definitely been shelved, and the recent source from Complex that Sergecross73 posted above would indicate that it is still planned for release, so it's still classified as a future album. But on a wider issue, I have to ask: would it matter even if the album never came out? Surely if it passes GNG with enough reliable sources discussing the record so that a decent Wikipedia article can be created, it's a valid article. Chinese Democracy has been mentioned above – imagine if after 14 years in the works, it had never been released... would we be suggesting that an article with more than 100 references should be merged into the band's article? And the most famous unreleased album of all has an article of more than 130 kB, and could well make GA with a little work – so we have a precedent for articles about unreleased albums. Sure, Music Is the Weapon isn't likely to be as famous or have an article as long and detailed as those two records. But if it's longer than a stub and it's well-referenced enough to pass WP:GNG (which it is), I don't see that it necessarily has to be released in order to have a Wikipedia article. Richard3120 (talk) 01:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.