Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stone Sour's third 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 00:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Stone Sour&

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unreleased unnammed album. Fails WP:CRYSTAL and falls foul of TenPoundHammer's Law. Duplicates material on the main article Stone Sour and no pressing reason why it needs a stand-alone article. Also WP:N concerns as the only independent source in the article which actually talks about this album is the Iconovision one. DustFormsWords (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - concur with nom. (GregJackP (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC))
 * Keep - This does not fail WP:CRYSTAL:
 * "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." from WP:CRYSTAL
 * It's notable because it's an album by a popular band, the release is almost certain to happen because sources verify that they've been writing and are now working in the studio on it.
 * Nor have WP:N concerns:
 * All the information provided is backed up with reliable third party sources, including interviews with the band members themselves despite the comments above. See Blabbermouth.net, Rock Sound and Noisecreep.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  23:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not reliable sources. Woogee (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How/why are they not reliable sources? They are all established, third-party websites/magazines in their respectful field (hard-rock music).  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  16:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me summarise the sources:
 * ""Our tentative plan is to start rehearsals for the new album in the fall of 2009, hit the studio at the beginning of 2010, and release around summer time."
 * No mention of new album.
 * "Stone Sour will probably go into the studio in January "for two or three months" to record its third album for a late spring/early summer."
 * "They'll probably go into the studio in January for two or three months to get the record together."
 * "Stone Sour has scrapped its previously announced plans to work with producer Rob Cavallo on the band's forthcoming third album. The group will now record the new CD in Nashville at Blackbird Studio with Grammy Award-winning producer Nick Raskulinecz. A summer release via Roadrunner Records is expected."
 * "The band is currently aiming for an August 2010 release date."
 * Emphasis in all quotes is mine. Refer to the following quote from WP:CRYSTAL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place."  "Almost certain" is a pretty high standard and is reserved for things like "the next US Presidential election" and "the next Olympic games".  This speculation doesn't reach that standard.  There's also still the issue that the article duplicates material at Stone Sour and no argument has been made as to why the material can't be appropriately covered in the existing article.  Finally, the album is to be released on the Roadrunner label so I can't see how Blabbermouth.net - hosted on the Roadrunner servers - can possibly be considered an independent source for this news. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources are used for more than just saying "this album is coming out on", they source information regarding writing and what the material they've been working on is like. Blabbermouth is only hosted by Roadrunner, not moderated. At the bottom it says "BLABBERMOUTH.NET is run and operated independently of Roadrunner Records. The accuracy of the information contained herein is neither confirmed nor guaranteed by Roadrunner Records, and the views and opinions of authors expressed on these pages do not necessarily state or reflect those of Roadrunner Records or its employees." . I know this isn't used in the article but here's a video of the band talking about the album:  REZTER   TALK   &oslash;  09:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Blabbermouth may or may be independent, but if you go to a site hosted on the Roadrunner website and it has an article talking about when a new Roadrunner product is coming out you'd be pretty naive to believe that that was an independent editorial decision completely unaffected by where their servers were hosted.  Or to put it another way; does it not strike you as odd that the majority of the coverage for this album emanates from a site hosted by the album's label? Regarding the sources, inasmuch as they talk about new music the band's working on, they're irrelevant, in that none of them say that material is going to be on the forthcoming album. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Gene93k. Also, not every future album is deleted, but we have been picky. Bearian (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to assume you mean per Rezter? Gen93k did not !vote.  Public Juju  T · C 17:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I see that the discussion is mixed. I retract my "keep". Bearian (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, standard WP:HAMMER/WP:CRYSTAL violation. If so little is known about an album that we can't even give its title, it is by definition not appropriate for an article. Filest (aktl) 08:56, 1 April 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.