Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Laws of Illusion


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The Laws of Illusion

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

WP:CRYSTAL —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per significant coverage in reliable independent sources. American Songwriter covers the album in connection with McLachlan's revival of the Lilith Fair and notes pre-order bonuses for early purchasers.  Direct Current carries a short piece here.  Billboard covers it, Hitfix covers it, and of all people NorthJersey.com covers it.  That's among what appear to be hundreds of others, mostly just repeating the American Songwriter article.  Also: Sarah McLachlan's releasing a new album?  Awesome.  Thanks, Wikipedia. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Tentative keep - assuming the sources cites by DustFormsWords are reliable. I think this would pass WP:HAMMER. Bearian (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. The source is credible so its very likely the album will be released with this title. However its obviously not a good idea to second guess matters of this kind. Szzuk (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's straight from Sarah McLachlan's own website, so unless you'd like to dispute the artist, let's keep this article. Zenimpulse (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The information in the link given above supports the information in the article. Should not delete. Shakir (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Sarah McLachlan discography, and recreate when more details are available. The bottom line rule per WP:MUSIC is that an album should never have a Wikipedia article until such time as we can write one which includes a title, an exact release date and a complete track listing. If we can't add all three of those, properly sourced, then we don't need an article about the album until we can — we ain't Pitchfork or Rolling Stone, so it's not our job to be the first source out of the gate with every last scrap of information about a forthcoming album. I'll withdraw this if somebody can show up with a properly sourced track listing — but until we actually have one, the album really doesn't need a separate article; a brief mention in the album's discography is all any album is ever entitled to until the track listing shows up too. Bearcat (talk) 00:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but could you quote the part of WP:MUSIC you're referring to? As far as I'm aware the "bottom line" of WP:MUSIC, per its lead paragraph, is WP:N - significant coverage in reliable independent sources - which WP:MUSIC is merely a guide to interpreting.  WP:NALBUMS specifically provides: "Unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources."  You may be thinking of the statement: "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," but if so you're failing to note that (a) that's just a guide to interpreting WP:N, (b) that here we have both the title and release date, and (c) that that statement comes immediately after the sentence "an unreleased album may qualify for an advance article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it". - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, that last criterion ("may qualify for an advance article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it") is for unreleased projects on the scale of Chinese Democracy, which was getting talked about years before it finally came out and had sources that could already support a very lengthy article as early as 2004, not for run-of-the-mill "artist announces new album, here's the few tidbits we know about it" situations where the available sources can only support a generic four-line stub that tells us nothing besides "artist announces new album". Secondly, I'm not disputing that we have a title and a release date — I'm pointing out that we don't have a track listing; all three of those things are mandatory in combination, and two out of three is not good enough. And finally, there has yet to be one single thing written about this album that actually contains substantial information about the album and isn't just a basic "Sarah McLachlan will have a new album out soon" announcement in the "300-words-or-less tidbits" column. That's not significant coverage; it's just blurbs. Bearcat (talk) 03:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Reading and understanding (and respecting) what you say above, my only comment is that WP:ALBUM is STILL subservient to WP:N and clarifies, rather than replaces, that policy. And that you're confusing the meaning of "significant coverage" within WP:N.  For coverage to be significant, it need only be that the sources "address the subject directly in detail"; there's no particular quantum of detail necessary so long as it is "more than a trivial mention", which these sources are.  There's no requirement that there be content sufficient to found an article of any particular length in that policy or any other, so far as I know.  That's what stubs are for.  Finally, it's not correct to say that we have nothing here other than "artist announces new album".  We have a release date, a title, we have preorder information and info on the preorder bonuses, and we know that it's being done in conjunction with the reboot of the Lilith Fair. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * None of the sources in question is anything more than a trivial mention. Bearcat (talk) 09:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess that's up to an interpretation of "trivial". I'd generally regard an article longer than a paragraph, with the article subject appearing in the headline, as non-trivial. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is one of Wikipedia's biggest problems. Here we have an album that you can actually PREORDER from the artist's web site, the article is already made and all we're left with is a bunch of users fighting about semantics. Oh for crying out loud. KEEP. Antti29 (talk) 21:07, 9 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.