162:
should disappear, though? That's a bit much. I've actually been using the "200 in Music" page to plan music purchases for about two years now, and haven't had a single problem with innaccurate information (In fact...if this page disappears, I will become an ex-user of
Knowledge, as this is the only thing I come for.) Obviously, there is some ability for us to reasonably list future releases of music. CDs don't just appear out of nowhere...their release dates are planned, promoted, and scheduled.
499:
among other things. It doesn't make much sense to delete the article just to bring it back in a few days. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't appear to be a serious problem. The sources are not WP:RS quality, but they don't appear to be dubious either. This is a cleanup job. 2008 in music developed just like this. If
161:
I have no idea how to properly make
Knowledge talk page edits, so perhaps someone can correct my formatting if this is all wrong, but I disagree with the above. It certainly seems that some of the entries on this article are unverifiable, wrong, etc. and should be deleted. To say the entire article
319:
Just strated checking more thoroughly and removing unverifiable content. Admittedly from starting at the end where the content is likely more dubious, but so far 16 of the 17 refs were invalid and removed. The article concept is not at dispute: when something of note happens in 2009 then add it, but
139:
in so many ways, this is it. A scan of the refs - particularly ones for releases with no exact date - shows blog entries (unreliable sources) and entries such as "album being worked on, hopefully released soon". One ref I saw is even dated 2007 suggesting a release by the end of that year.
334:
Ok, I've checked 2nd quarter forwards and virtually nothing was adequately referenced (2 remain). Far more worrying, I've also checked
January (which should be trivial to reference now) and more than half the refs were invalid. This whole article is hugely problematic. Empty it and start
244:
Why delete it now when 2009 is only 3 weeks away and we would have to recreate it again. Most of the material on the list is confirmed to happen (although I haven't checked everything personally), so
124:
436:- why bother deleting? Just strip out the rumours and fancruft and keep what's left as a stub. It'll be a stub for a fortnight OH NOES ZOMG !!!11!!! etc. what's the fuss?
267:
454:
169:
91:
86:
95:
56:
17:
78:
453:; I totally agree that deleting it now would be silly. And it would turn a few users away from this site to boot.
524:
36:
523:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
458:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
399:
Two weeks yesterday (as I write) is New Year's Day 2009. So why delete the page for the music of next year?
509:
487:
462:
445:
441:
424:
408:
389:
373:
352:
329:
311:
282:
257:
236:
219:
202:
177:
173:
153:
60:
496:
232:
192:
404:
165:
196:
50:
344:
215:
82:
505:
437:
420:
385:
361:
325:
278:
245:
149:
132:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
369:
348:
292:
228:
480:
400:
254:
364:
doesn't apply to sourced speculation, which this is. Meticulously sourced, in fact.
211:
141:
74:
66:
501:
416:
381:
321:
274:
145:
112:
380:
As noted above, virtually none of the refs checked so far stands up to scrutiny.
227:- Certainly there's sources out there for something that begins in just 13 days.
365:
136:
250:
500:
2008 is any guide, we'll have historic facts by the first week in
January.
210:
WTF? 2008 is almost over, and there's no reason to delete this article.
195:
can all be sourced verifiably, at least, so why not for all genres?
517:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
476:
119:
108:
104:
100:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
527:). No further edits should be made to this page.
191:of this can be sourced reliably. The content on
479:is in less than two weeks. What's the harm?
8:
343:There is no need for speculation just yet.
268:list of Music-related deletion discussions
415:For the reasons given in the nomination.
131:If ever there was an article that breaks
266:: This debate has been included in the
320:this is all speculation and nonsense.
7:
187:because I'm certain that at least
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
510:17:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
488:16:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
463:03:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
446:22:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
425:15:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
409:14:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
390:14:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
374:13:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
353:13:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
330:09:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
312:08:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
283:00:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
258:22:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
237:22:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
220:21:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
203:21:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
178:21:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
154:21:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
61:19:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
544:
520:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
291:per above comments. —
248:really doesn't apply.
401:DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)
193:2009 in country music
201:and his otters •
309:
302:
298:
285:
271:
168:comment added by
59:
53:
44:The result was
535:
522:
485:
307:
300:
296:
272:
262:
199:
198:Ten Pound Hammer
180:
122:
116:
98:
55:
49:
34:
543:
542:
538:
537:
536:
534:
533:
532:
531:
525:deletion review
518:
481:
197:
163:
118:
89:
73:
70:
48:.--Esprit15d •
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
541:
539:
530:
529:
513:
512:
497:WP:COMMONSENSE
490:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
455:96.246.232.202
412:
411:
393:
392:
377:
376:
355:
338:
337:
336:
314:
286:
260:
239:
222:
205:
158:
144:also applies.
129:
128:
69:
64:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
540:
528:
526:
521:
515:
514:
511:
507:
503:
498:
494:
491:
489:
486:
484:
478:
475:
472:
471:
464:
460:
456:
452:
449:
448:
447:
443:
439:
435:
432:it's here in
431:
428:
427:
426:
422:
418:
414:
413:
410:
406:
402:
398:
395:
394:
391:
387:
383:
379:
378:
375:
371:
367:
363:
359:
356:
354:
350:
346:
342:
339:
333:
332:
331:
327:
323:
318:
315:
313:
310:
306:
295:
290:
287:
284:
280:
276:
269:
265:
261:
259:
256:
253:
252:
247:
243:
242:Snowball Keep
240:
238:
234:
230:
226:
223:
221:
217:
213:
209:
206:
204:
200:
194:
190:
186:
183:
182:
181:
179:
175:
171:
167:
159:
156:
155:
151:
147:
143:
138:
134:
126:
121:
114:
110:
106:
102:
97:
93:
88:
84:
80:
76:
75:2009 in music
72:
71:
68:
67:2009 in music
65:
63:
62:
58:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
519:
516:
492:
482:
473:
450:
438:Totnesmartin
433:
429:
396:
357:
340:
316:
304:
293:
288:
263:
249:
241:
224:
207:
188:
184:
170:65.240.152.5
160:
157:
130:
45:
43:
31:
28:
451:Strong keep
430:Strong keep
289:Strong keep
229:Umbralcorax
164:—Preceding
142:WP:NOT#NEWS
362:WP:CRYSTAL
246:WP:CRYSTAL
133:WP:CRYSTAL
502:• Gene93k
434:two weeks
275:• Gene93k
166:unsigned
125:View log
57:contribs
417:Ros0709
382:Ros0709
341:Delete.
322:Ros0709
317:Comment
146:Ros0709
92:protect
87:history
366:JulesH
345:Elm-39
335:again!
255:(talk)
120:delete
96:delete
397:Keep.
251:Tavix
123:) – (
113:views
105:watch
101:links
16:<
506:talk
495:per
493:Keep
477:2009
474:Keep
459:talk
442:talk
421:talk
405:talk
386:talk
370:talk
358:Keep
349:talk
326:talk
297:RAZY
279:talk
264:Note
233:talk
225:Keep
216:talk
212:Alex
208:Keep
189:some
185:Keep
174:talk
150:talk
137:WP:V
135:and
109:logs
83:talk
79:edit
51:talk
46:keep
483:Sam
360:.
308:ANE
273:--
270:.
508:)
461:)
444:)
423:)
407:)
388:)
372:)
351:)
328:)
303:)`
301:lN
299:`(
281:)
235:)
218:)
176:)
152:)
111:|
107:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
85:|
81:|
54:•
504:(
457:(
440:(
419:(
403:(
384:(
368:(
347:(
324:(
305:S
294:C
277:(
231:(
214:(
172:(
148:(
127:)
117:(
115:)
77:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.