Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Flash Flood of Colour

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 no consensus. The article nominator said so themselves, "as I have already stated that notability is not a issue." Giving the SPAs less weight especially given that their rationales are not based in policy, there is no consensus to keep or delete. Peridon's suggestion to redirect may be a good possibility but lacks consensus in this discussion. v/r - T P 16:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Flash Flood of Colour

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has just one reference which says "Posted by Katie P", which means that it was a blog entry, making the reference not reliable. Also the album is not yet released so its tough to get references for it, so I think this article should be deleted in case a much reliable source is added. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 14:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pending the emergence of reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 14:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Has anyone looked for something more reliable? (Disclaimer: I haven't yet - should hasve gone out 10 minutes ago...) Peridon (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've had a quick look for sources and found the following: 1, 2, 3. Seems to be notable. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no much issues with the notability, however the "Alter The Press!" source says "POSTED BY JON ABLESON AT 10:29", which means its a blog entry, and the other two sources doesn't seems to be much reliable, as "female first" seems to be a gossip magazine. I think references will be not available for now, maybe I should move the article to "Article Incubator" and then move the article to mainspace during the release as more sources will be available. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 17:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The articles linked above are just a sample of what is available online (here are some more [1] [2] [3] [4]). Many of the articles simply report on the album being announced, but the large amount of them definitely makes it meet notability, as they reflect the level of attention and interest over it. Incubation makes some sense, but with both the release date and the tracklist being confirmed, I think that keeping the article is better than having a temporary redirect to the band — frankie (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm a little confused why the official site isn't being taken into consideration [5] 35.32.210.89 (talk) 03:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all an official website is not at all reliable. Second "rocksound" doesn't says much, as I have already stated that notability is not a issue, "nme" seems too much like a advertisement, however "outune" and "live4ever.uk" seems to be reliable, although the first one is in Italian so I am not 100% sure for that. Maybe we should add it in the article as reference. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 10:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Put it this way. Are you going to say anything against yourself on your website? Wikipedia articles are not (supposed to be...) nice little (or big) depictions of everything as seen through rose tinted glasses. Some people who have put self-praising vanity articles here have been very upset when someone else knows where the bodies were buried (and when, and who), and can prove it with better references than the subject had. That's why we discount own sites (and Facebook & Co too). Enter Shikari's site can be used as evidence of future plans, but not that these plans are notable. Until independent reliable coverage appears, this might be better as a redirect to a section on their article rather than being deleted. And while we're at it, can you remind me when it's out so I know when to go and get it? Peridon (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP seems notable enough and will become even more notable. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.