Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oceania (Smashing Pumpkins 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) Baseball   Watcher  12:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Oceania (Smashing Pumpkins album)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

PROD was contested, though no improvements to the article were made. This unreleased album fails WP:HAMMER, WP:NALBUM and WP:CRYSTAL criteria. Currently, all that's known is the title and a tentative release date. Let's wait until there's actually something to be said about this album. (NOTE: Since the time of the nomination, the article Oceania (Smashing Pumpkins album) has been moved to Oceania (album). It was suggested at WP:GTD to mention this at the top and bottom of the discussion.) Fezmar9 (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to artist for now until notable sources exist. Album articles for Glee often don't exist until Amazon or iTunes or someone puts them up, similar rule applies here.  CycloneGU (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If the result of the discussion is redirect, it might make more sense to redirect it to Teargarden by Kaleidyscope than the artist's profile since this album is being released as a part of that project. Fezmar9 (talk) 05:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then when the album is actually released, a new page will have to be made anyways. I mean there is already a page for Teargarden, which is only a work in progress and is nowhere near to being released as a finished product. Rickvaughn (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. The two previously released parts of Teargarden didn't meet the notability guidelines and were merged into the project article. What's to say the same won't hold true for Oceania? Teargarden has it's own page because there is an abundance of sources for one to write a reasonably detailed article on the subject. Please review the various policies and guidelines linked in this discussion. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the redirect idea. This is a placeholder article, and we all know how erratic and mercurial album titles are (see Good Ass Job). StevePrutz (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Note -- Since the time of the nomination, the article Oceania (Smashing Pumpkins album) has been moved to Oceania (album). It was suggested at WP:GTD to mention this at the top and bottom of the discussion. Fezmar9 (talk) 06:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Album has been formally announced. Release timeframe is known. (Sept. 2011). Has received notable coverage. (For instance, Rolling Stones.) It may be a short article at the moment, but certainly should not be deleted. Sergecross73   msg me   12:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, there is a date. Sept. 1st, 2011. Sergecross73   msg me   12:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All of the published articles posted online with information about Oceania stem from a Facebook video of Corgan talking about upcoming Smashing Pumpkins plans. In the video he says, "hopefully it'll be out September 1st." That doesn't sound very set-in-stone or definite to me. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless, it's a tentative date, and a rather specific one. Who are we to measure how confident Corgan is of the release date? He gave a date he's aiming for, reliable sources reported on it. Anything else is subjective and opinion. Sergecross73   msg me   16:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - The album has been announced and has been reported by authentic sources. Although a tracklisting has yet to be announced, this page doesn't violate any other of TenPoundHammer's Laws. It has a title, a release date and is not referenced from information off rumors posted to message boards, blogs or MySpace. The information has been reported from a reputable source, i.e. Rolling Stone magazine, with which the reference is currently included in the article. Darwin&#39;s Bulldog (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep – The album will have its own title, story, production details, despite being said to be some part of Teargarden. My bet is that, although independently released, it's a part of the reissues deal with EMI. And that it won't be the only "album within an album" – as Teargarden was said to be recorded until 2014, and reissues are announced to be prepared until 2013). Simply because standard records would generate a substantial amount of publicity which will definitely help the reissues. And they will be undeniably expensive toys... – Kochas (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Those are all very interesting theories, but none of what you just said here is in response to the reasons stated in the nomination. There are various guidelines which suggest when it may be acceptable to create a stand-alone article for an upcoming topic and/or album. According to WP:NALBUM, "Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release." Fezmar9 (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How many reliable sources do you really think are necessary for it to be not deleted? There are currently 3 separate reliable sources. None of the article is currently speculation. Why aren't these three enough? Sergecross73   msg me   22:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the sources provided qualify as reliable, and I agree that everything stated in this article is properly verified. I am measuring the amount of information not by the quantity of sources present, but the amount of detail within in these sources. There doesn't seem to be an abundance of information available out there yet to write an in-depth article on this subject. This is the basic criteria given at WP:GNG, WP:NALBUM and WP:HAMMER. Does Wikipedia truly need an article dedicated to informing readers that Smashing Pumpkins intend on releasing a new album titled Oceania, and that Corgan changed his mind about something he said earlier? Or can this same information fulfill the exact same purpose at an already existing article such as Smashing Pumpkins or Teargarden by Kaleidyscope? The amount of information should always be the guiding factor in creating stand alone articles. The Smashing Pumpkins discography exists because the amount of information here is too great for the artist's article. That statement would not be true if the group only released one album. Would List of The Smashing Pumpkins band members exist if Smashing Pumpkins maintained the same lineup since 1988? Highly unlikely. But because the group had several official members and touring members, there was enough information to write a stand alone article. There's also no telling when additional information about Oceania may become available. The tentative release date is four months away. Will this article sit as only a few sentences for four months? The group hasn't even started on the album, and artists are notorious for breaking Hofstadter's law. It's not unreasonable to believe that this article will unlikely develop beyond where it is now for quite a while. Fezmar9 (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess it comes down to opinion at this point then. I feel like the TBK page is already getting cluttered, and I feel like this will get a lot of coverage, especially since they seem to be working with a record label again. Not to mention, I believe it'll be much easier to have information strictly on Oceania merely because it's named something different than TBK. (In contrast to names like "TBK Vol 2", where it's hard to tell if information is about the project as a whole or the specific EP.) Also, I can't help but think that, if your approach was the only way, then there wouldn't be any stubs on wikpedia as a whole. Not every article needs to be extensive right away. What matters is that it's clearly notable, and reliable sources are reporting on it. Sergecross73   msg me   12:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No one expects articles to reach FA status or even a B-class right off the bat. There just needs to currently exist sufficient evidence that one could plausibility write a decent article on the subject one day. If an article remains a stub and shows no signs of possible expansion, it'll likely get deleted or merged. The recently released SP song "Owata" has received arguably the same, if not greater, media coverage as Oceania. Why does it not have an article? Because all of the sources merely acknowledge its existence, and little more. The same could be said of Oceania. This article is hinging on the hope that one day enough information will become available. I'm simply suggesting that we wait for said time, whenever that may be. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, on the basis of coverage in reliable sources. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:11, 5 May 2011 (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.