Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/25 (Adele album)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by XiuBouLin (talk | contribs) at 03:13, 8 September 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

25 (Adele album)

25 (Adele album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails complete WP:GNG and Notability for albums, the name 25 itself is WP:OR, redirecting whole article to Adele was reverted. I'm notminating this for deletion or merge it into articles for creation again, untill official confirmation comes from the singer or XL Recordings. ETA: "Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources. Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release. For example, a future album whose article is titled "(Artist)'s Next Album" and consists solely of blog or fan forum speculation about possible titles, or songs that might be on the album, is a violation of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and should be discussed only in the artist's article, and even then only if there is some verifiable information about it." —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 14:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 14:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 14:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

(from a Google News search for the term "Adele 25", from just the first page)
(many more results exist)
Adele's new upcoming album, and the assumption that it will be also named after her age, has been the subject of a huge amount of buzz. I tend to be pretty deletionist about music album articles, but this is an obvious keep. Reventtalk 14:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(comment) The links I gave there are just to show that the assumed name is not OR, that the assumption it will be named 25 is very widely made. Her 'upcoming album' has been widely talked about, under the various assumed title, for four years now, and will supposedly be released September 25th. Reventtalk 14:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia does not work in that way and I assume you know about WP:CRYSTAL. Also please read WP:NALBUMS. There has been no ounce of information from Adele herself or XL Recordings at all about an album named 25, nor is there any official confirmation that it would be released on September 25, 2014. I'm just plain surprised that even after reading the sources, which all speculate, that you even try to stick up for keeping the article. The whole article, named as 25 (Adele album), itself is a violation of GNG. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 16:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That truly is a laughable group of sources, and even they are reporting it as a rumor, not fact.—Kww(talk) 02:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Borderline Speedy Keep) Passes the notability guideline based on significant coverage in Billboard, Digital Spy and The Observer—never mind that she has tweeted personally about 25.  Philg88 ♦talk 15:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, I don't "know it". It is based on this quote "Bye bye 25, see you again later in the year,” the singer tweeted in May, on the eve of her 26th birthday, a message widely read as a first announcement of her new record." from a reliable source.  Philg88 ♦talk 05:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep I don't think there is any reason to suspect that this album isn't going to be released. XiuBouLin (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you can see the future? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 16:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:CRYSTAL, really only deals with events or with speculation. I was legitimately wondering if you have any reason to believe that this album won't be a thing. I can see this being moved to drafts. But after doing a bit of searching around the net, its clear that there's better sourcing available for this. One small example is on http://adele.wikia.com/wiki/25, under the references section, its clear that there's better sourcing available for this topic. There is a speculative nature to this article's topic, and there should definitely be a Crystal template added, but deleting it would be excessive. XiuBouLin (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikia is a fan site and you know it. That page also has lots of poor referencing like Perez Hilton, ATRL, Entertainmentwise, and dayoneadelefans.com. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, that was a pretty bad attempt to justify keeping the article, using a wikia content wich sources Perezzhilton and PopCrush. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wikia is a commercial wiki, it also has a broader scope than Wikipedia, and it does have better sourcing than this article. I don't care for pop-music, so I have no reason to "justify" keeping the article. It was not a "pretty bad attempt to justify keeping the article", that's an exorbitant look at my statement, especially considering it wasn't entire basis of my argument. My speedy keep was in response to large amount of "Keep" votes proceeding my statement. Neither of you have clarified, as to whether or not, that you have any reason to believe this album won't exist. To be honest deleting this article, considering its just going to be back in a few months, is ridiculous. Keep or Move to Draftspace. XiuBouLin (talk) 03:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to WP:Drafts plausible search term, but fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:HAMMER miserably- no confirmed release date or tracklist. It also is rather poorly sourced, and definitely NOT an "obvious keep" or "speedy keep". Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NALBUMS. Future albums are supposed to have a confirmed title, track listing, and release date. This article only has a confirmed title. EDIT: Move to WP:Drafts per SNUGGUMS's suggestions. Erick (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL. The guidance in WP:NALBUMS to only create articles when there is a confirmed title, tracklist, and release data is extremely sound guidance. Passing the WP:GNG is not an assurance that there should be a separate article, only the bare minimum threshold to be crossed in order to permit one. Our experience with premature album articles demonstrates exactly how unwise it is to have these articles.—Kww(talk) 17:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Until track list, release dates etc are confirmed. By the way, who has confirmed it is even called 25? No one from what I can see in the article. Adele, her label not her management have confirmed that it is called 25. Further reason to redirect.  — ₳aron 18:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
  • As I specifically said, those weren't sources I was citing to show the 'notability', just to show that the idea that the name was OR was laughable. OR means that the Wikipedia editor came up with something that sources don't say, which is obviously not the case here. But, since you insist....
  1. Entertainment Weekly (9/2/14) http://music-mix.ew.com/2014/09/02/adele-unreleased-tracks/
  2. People (7/17/14) http://www.people.com/article/adele-new-album-25-rumor
  3. Huffington Post (7/16/14) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/16/adele-new-album-25-tour_n_5590696.html
  4. New York Daily News (9/2/14) http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/adele-songs-leaked-online-years-album-article-1.1925114
  5. BET (7/16/14) http://www.bet.com/news/music/2014/07/16/adele-announces-new-album-and-tour-in-2015.html
  6. The Guardian (7/18/14) http://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2014/jul/18/adele-new-album-what-we-know-so-far
  7. CNN (7/16/14) http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/16/showbiz/music/adele-new-album-25/
  8. Billboard (7/16/14) http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6157708/adele-next-album-rumor
  9. Time (5/5/14) http://time.com/88020/adele-25-album-title/
  10. Spin (7/16/14) http://www.spin.com/articles/adele-new-album-tour-25/
  11. The Daily Mail (5/5/14) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2620534/Adele-drops-biggest-hint-release-album-imminently.html
  12. The Independent (9/6/14) http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/adele-hints-third-album-25-will-be-released-by-end-of-2014-9325478.html
  13. ET Online (7/16/14) http://www.etonline.com/music/148459_adele_new_album_will_be_titled_25/
  14. Daily Mirror (5/5/14) http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/adele-birthday-singer-drops-album-3497030
  15. New York Daily News (7/16/2014) http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/adele-tour-2015-album-release-report-article-1.1868983
Again, not even trying hard here. Yes, it's rumor and speculation, but it's not our speculation, and the rumor and speculation is obviously quite notable.
IndianBio, to address your apparent misconception about the way AfD is supposed to work... articles are not required to be perfect, or even good, to survive an AfD. If sources exist, the article should be improved, not deleted. AfD is about is the /topic/ is notable and worthy of an article, not about if the article is crap as it stands. There are many lousy articles about notable topics on Wikipedia, that do not do the subject justice...that does not mean they should be deleted. And yes, I did revert your attempt to shortcut any kind of deletion process by converting the article to a redirect without any discussion, because it showed a total disregard for the process and opinion of other editors. I have yet to see any statement by you or Kww that suggests you have made any attempt to research the notability of this topic. Instead, you simply seem to not like it.
To address some of the complaints being made here, specifically, since people are just quoting this and that essay or guideline, and not really making arguments.
  • "Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources." See the above, and much, much, much more if you only bothered to look.
  • "For example, a future album whose article is titled "(Artist)'s Next Album" and consists solely of blog or fan forum speculation about possible titles, or songs that might be on the album, is a violation of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and should be discussed only in the artist's article, and even then only if there is some verifiable information about it." (my emphasis) Yes, the article was, as created, based only on lousy sources... but many, many, many reliable sources for the same information exist. It is not our place to speculate, and it is not our place to report on what is said on fansites, but it is our place to report on notable subjects, even if they haven't happened yet.
That is totally irrelevant, though, since the subject meets the GNG. Easily. Reventtalk 22:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Without a confirmed release date, this album fails WP:CRYSTAL. Another red flag is no confirmed tracklist. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notice the line in WP:NALBUMS about three lines up from your quote: 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. There is no need to have articles about gossip and speculation.—Kww(talk) 04:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Revent, I also suggest that you note that the WP:GNG is not a guarantee of inclusion: it is the bare minimum threshold a topic must breach to be considered for inclusion in a standalone article. All kinds of things that pass the GNG are deleted.—Kww(talk) 04:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Revent:, you very well know what I have removed from the article. Unreliable blog sources like Perez Hilton and PopCrush are not reliable sources so please don't lecture me on the AFD process. I know very well how it works. And it is not my burden to find out sources for an album which is all about speculations. All the sources you listed, I repeat all, are speculating on the album's title and supposedly release date. And that is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. So yeah, my nomination reasoning stands. You are trying to push something which basically has hypothetical existence, without any confirmation. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? Really? WP:BEFORE, B, 2. "If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. (See step D.)" D, 3 "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources, using the advice in Wikipedia:How to cite sources, or at minimum apply an appropriate template to the page that flags the sourcing concern." Yes, it is your burden to attempt to do so, before you nominate an article for AFD. Reventtalk 07:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes my dear, really. None of the sources searched gave any ounce of indication that the album has been confirmed as named 25, nor a release date. Sources base this on Adele's cryptic tweet "Bye bye 25.. see you later (blahblah)" and they even list it as an assumption. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice way to ignore what I said about WP:BEFORE, and your disregarding it. Her tweet was obviously seen as an indication that the album would be released this year, because she said she would see 25 again, as she has named her previous albums after her age. Whether the name has been confirmed or not, '25' obviously passes WP:COMMONNAME as how the topic is referred to. Your 'the name is OR' claim is still laughable. Reventtalk 08:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You also deleted a YouTube video as an unreliable source, when the actual source was an Entertainment Tonight interview with her just hosted on YouTube. Did you even watch it? Reventtalk 08:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not assuming anything. The sources are, and we can discuss that. The 'speculation' is not unverifiable, it is widely reported in reliable sources. As far as the Youtube thing, it's quite telling that you're now trying to come up with new (and still invalid) reasons to remove it. For one thing, you used the wrong template, and reported the text that I readded as a copyright violation, instead of tagging the link as being to a potential copyvio, which is just wrong since it's text from a CC-BY-SA source. Also, the linked video (which is only about two minutes long) is not a copyright violation, it's brief enough to be reusable under fair use. That would have something to do with why YouTube, who does remove copyrighted material quite aggressively, has not removed it. Reventtalk 14:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube tends to be discouraged as a source, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm telling you that it's a convenience link, the material is sourced to a television interview, and that if you have a problem with the convenience link you remove the link, not the sourced, cited content. I'm also telling you that you need to read the directions before you use a template, and not flag text that is from a CC-BY-SA source attributed in the article if your problem is with a link. The text you flagged was patently not a copyright violation. I'm also telling you that before you remove something as an unreliable source you should actually look at it... a statement of what a person said in an interview, sourced to that interview, is not an unreliable source.
In the edit summary when I took off the {{copyright violation}} template, if you bothered to look at it before reverting, I specifically said the text you flagged is CC-BY-SA, that you probably meant to use {{copyvio link}}, and that I disagreed. Your revert was inane, if you wanted to flag the link you shouldn't have restored the wrong template, you should have added the right one. Reventtalk 19:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And herein you don't get the fact that Wikia content cannot be accepted by Commons license for the same reason that they are not a copyright claimer. They have absolutely no right to that content they have released under the license. And convenience or not, you purposefully added a link with copyright claims, even going as far as to claim that it was YouTube's responsibility to see if it is copyrighted. As I said in your talk page, drop the WP:IDHT please. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 19:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/25_(Adele_album)&oldid=624620827"