Talk:Evolution (JLS album)

Contested deletion[edit]

This article should not be speedy deleted as being about a musical recording that does not indicate its own importance and where the artist's article does not exist, because CSD A9 talks about the artist's page not existing or an un-notable album. A quick search on Google (or DuckDuckGo :P) comes up with a lot of things on this new album. --Yeknom Dnalsli (talk) 12:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent WP:CRYSTAL and reliable sources issue[edit]

Hi, I removed the redirect because I disagree with Pigsonthewing about those problems. Now because I don't wish to cause an edit war, I'm going to place this article up at AfD. Yeknom Dnalsli (expound your voicebox here) 06:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article right now is based on three sources that all appear to be based on press releases from the band. None of them are independent of the subject of the article. There is enough to confirm the album but not enough for a standalone article. This should be redirected to the band's article. It may in the future deserve an article on its own, depending on the press it gets after it is released. GB fan 15:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.music-news.com/shownews.asp?H=JLS-return-with-new-album-Evolution-and-single-Hottest-Girl-In-The-World&nItemID=56333 - how about this?

None of them are independent of the subject of the article.

I don't think WP:PRIMARY is avoidable here. Therefore, I think a big fat rule could apply here. Yeknom Dnalsli (expound your voicebox here) 15:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We get by the problem of having to ignore the notability guideline by just including this information in the band's article and redirecting this page there. Ignoring rules should apply when there isn't a way of complying with the rules and it is for the good of the encyclopedia. GB fan 16:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK - anyways - is the above ref OK? Yeknom Dnalsli (expound your voicebox here) 16:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No; it merely churns a press release. And stop reverting redirects of this article to the band's article, until such time as there is proper coverage of the album, in reliable and independent sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is proper press coverage of the album. All it takes is a Google search, with a whole page of results. Do you think everything in Category:Upcoming albums should be deleted? Yeknom Dnalsli (expound your voicebox here) 17:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Then why are none cited in the article? (2) No, just those with no reliable, independent citations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(1)OK then, I've added more citations (2 more on one part and one on another part that I've added). (2) They are independent citations, all not associated to JLS. Yeknom Dnalsli (expound your voicebox here) 18:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't anything there that wasn't said by the band itself. Nothing independent of the band, redirect it to the band's article. GB fan 20:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:PRIMARY can be ignored here since really, when it comes straight from the band you can trust it. And also, WP:PRIMARY states: primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia. Yeknom Dnalsli (expound your voicebox here) 15:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is the exact problem, there isn't anything at this point that isn't said by the band. Why should we ignore notability guidelines for this article when we can comply with all guidelines by putting the information into the band's article and redirecting this to the band article? You have never explained your objection to this alternative. Primary sources can be used, no one has said they can't. They can't be used to establish notability and that is what you are trying to do. GB fan 15:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But why hasn't this article been redirected yet? This has the same issue as this one (and no I won't nom that article for deletion). Yeknom Dnalsli (expound your voicebox here) 15:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, maybe because someone hasn't seen it. I noticed this one because it was nominated for deletion and I tried to fix the problems without deleting it. There are probably many articles that haven't been noticed that are in in the same state as this one or worse. I don't go looking for them. GB fan 16:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the redirect. Everyone agrees that there are no independent sources available for this album. It should be relooked at after the album releases to see if any reliable sources discuss the album. GB fan 16:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is ever restored as an article the history from User:Yeknom Dnalsli/Evolution (JLS album) needs to be incorporated into the article here and once again I have restored the redirect to the band's article after the article was moved into userspace. GB fan 16:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was restored, so I merged the histories of the two articles. Good luck. GB fan 18:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Evolution (JLS album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121103121922/http://www.4music.com/news/reviews/6548/JLS-Evolution to http://www.4music.com/news/reviews/6548/JLS-Evolution

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]