Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Need You Now (Plumb 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. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Need You Now (Plumb album)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Forthcoming album with very weak sourcing. Per WP:MUSIC, "In a few special cases, an unreleased album may qualify for an article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it.... However, this only applies to a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects — generally, 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." We currently have one reliable source mentioning anything about this album, a tweet that gives the title and the reason for the title. We do not have reliable sources for anything else about this album: not the release date, track list, etc. There are two singles, but sources on them do not mention this album. Prod removed with the explanation "Two singles. Album will chart and have more exposure when released. Removing prod." Sum mer PhD (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Charting singles. Future release. I have had several future release albums that I nominated be kept for this sole reason. Release is less than six weeks away. Reviews should be appearing shortly. The fact this this was deleted and then moved to my user space on 2011-10-03 means that some of the references are dead. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Two reliable sources: Jesus Freak Hideout lists its original title and there is a trivial article for the new album: http://www.jesusfreakhideout.com/cdreviews/NeedYouNow.asp and will likely be covered extensively by that source among others. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If Jesus Freak Hideout is a reliable source, that gives us one paragraph from an independent source and a tweet from the artist. That is not substantial coverage from independent reliable sources. Yes, many of your sources were dead links. Moreover, as sources from nearly two years ago they did not confirm the material they were being used as cites for (the album title and release date, for instance). I see no indication that this album is one of "a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects" (with WP:MUSIC citing Chinese Democracy as an example. Roughly 6 weeks before that album was released, its sources were far more extensive than the brief article and tweet here. Billboard, MTV, The New York Times, VH1, USA Today, The New York Post, Rolling Stone, Los Angeles Times, AMG... That is substantial coverage. A webzine and a tweet are not.
 * (Charting singles (which none of the reliable sources place on this album) would make this album notable upon its release (as will the fact that Plumb is notable). This album has not been released.) - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources place it on the album before the name change. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There was nothing in the article showing this. Now we have a reliable source placing the singles on the album. When the album is released it will pass WP:MUSIC. At the moment, it doesn't. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: I got two more to add to this discussion going on AllMusic and New Releasee Tuesday that have pages on it. This passes SummerPhD's requirements, which are quite arduous, so it must be kept.HotHat (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, Curb Records confirmed it in the rundown currently at No. 2.HotHat (talk) 06:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * These are not "my" requirements, these are the consensus requirements laid out at WP:MUSIC. They are quite arduous and for good reason. Future albums have a way of being changed, rescheduled and even cancelled, as has been the case with this very album.
 * The allmusic source is helpful. It actually gives the title, release date and track list. The newreleasetuesday site is user edited and, therefore, not a reliable source. The curb.com homepage's coverage (such as it is) gives the album title and the current release date. Searching the rest of the site, I can find no other mention of the album. Again, the standard is Music: "Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources. In a few special cases, an unreleased album may qualify for an article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it....However, this only applies to a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects." - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Understood. I got this from the label source.HotHat (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * New Release Tuesday is not user edited. It allows for feedback, but the content is staff-created. That rule you state does not apply to the three albums I nominated well in advance so it doesn't apply here either. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The Curb info is in the article. If New Release Tuesday is not user edited, it's news to them. The page linked gives a link to "edit" which asks me to create a free "NRTeam" account... What happened with your other forthcoming album article that allowed it to avoid the community consensus? I haven't a clue. Other stuff exists. That some other article slipped through the cracks does not mean this one should. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It has both professional staff and a public source that is reviewed by the staff. I would not have a problem removing that source. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 13:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 13:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - GNG, and it's certainly beyond violating TenPoundHammer's Law.   original title  -- No  unique  names  15:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is an "exceptionally high-profile projects"? Meh. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is an album where the name and track order are known. This meets GNG requirements (see my links, for instance).  -- No  unique  names  17:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is the TenPoundHammer's Law for reference.HotHat (talk) 06:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with that essay. There are two reasons that essay is irrelevant here. 1) It is an essay. While I have a good bit of respect for Ten, an essay is not a guideline or policy. WP:MUSIC is a guideline. That guideline, to repeat, says, "In a few special cases, an unreleased album may qualify for an article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it....However, this only applies to a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects." If this is an "exceptionally high-profile" project, I'm the King of Spain in a skirt. 2) The essay does not say what you think it says. It says that articles without certain qualifications are likely to be deleted. This does not mean that articles with those qualifications should not be deleted. People without lungs will die therefore people with lungs will live forever . - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was just posting it after the reference was made by another user, you did not have to go on a diatribe about the posting of the essay.HotHat (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I see sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about this album provided here and in the article. I also see that WP:GNG is met.  A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not (per WP:GNG).  Whether or not that makes it high profile is not for me to decide, but it currently meets guideline requirements for inclusion.  -- No  unique  names  02:24, 20 January 2013 (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.