Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No More Idols


 * 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 The dispute seems to be, not whether the artist is notable, but whether an article should be made before the work has been released. Anyone may renominate the article if the album is not released on 31 January 2011. Mandsford 13:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

No More Idols

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unreleased album. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Dolovis (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 04:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Album by a notable artist has a sourced tracklist, coverart, and release date.  ~ [ Scott M. Howard  ] ~ [  Talk  ]:[  Contribs  ] ~  03:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just like which is heading for deletion for a second time? &#9786;  It is amusing to see two mutually contradictory discussions right next to each other.  Uncle G (talk) 05:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Chase & Status discography, Surely its going to be released, but more info is needed to have a page of its own. Redirect for now. Ga   Be   19  05:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per WP:NALBUM, "the musician or ensemble is notable" and "the album in question has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources" (google it) so it's definitely notable. Gabe19, what more information do you want? There's already a track list, cover art and release date. How is WP:CRYSTAL relevant? This doesn't violate that. Per Scott M. Howard, all the info is referenced in a reliable source - nothing here is speculative. Mhiji (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - If this release is so "notable", there should be more than one reference, besides the reference used is from iTunes; there are hundreds if not thousands of releases in the iTunes store, many that aren't notable, such as this release. Ga   Be   19  02:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - here's a whole list of references, if you want them. Specifically, Amazon.co.uk seems pretty reputable.  ~ [  Scott M. Howard  ] ~ [  Talk  ]:[  Contribs  ] ~  03:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Then they should be added, right?? Ga   Be   19  08:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really, what's the point of having a hundred references for the same thing?! Mhiji (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It adds to the verifiability. plus what if one reference becomes a dead link... now it's unreferened  ~ [ Scott M. Howard  ] ~ [  Talk  ]:[  Contribs  ] ~  16:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly! Having one source doesn't make it notable. Is there any other coverage on it, (ie. promotion, reviews, recording, etc.)? If your going to make a page, have the intention of expanding it and updating it as time goes on. Ga   Be   19  22:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The main thing that makes this notable is the artist's notability per WP:NALBUM. Extra info can and will be added to it as time goes on. Mhiji (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I can hardly see iTunes disappearing any time soon... Add the Amazon one if you like, but I don't really think it's necessary since that doesn't have any information that the iTunes one doesn't. Mhiji (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, that is not a "whole list of references". It's a URL for a search.  It's not even a citation.  And for me the search turns up a whole load of stuff that isn't a source at all, including a Wikipedia article and quite a lot of shopping catalogues.  A search URL is not a source citation, and doesn't necessarily even yield sources (or indeed the even same thing for two different people around the world). Uncle G (talk) 05:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep per ScottMHowad. CPerked (talk) 05:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Verifiable details, notable artist, minimal coverage at present, but it would be pointless to delete this now with only a few weeks before release.--Michig (talk) 07:57, 31 December 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.