Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Starts Now

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 redirect to Three_Days_Grace#Life_Starts_Now_.282009_onward.29. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Life Starts Now

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

incomplete tracklist. Lacks reliable sources (the band's myspace page, official website and blogs are not reliable). May meet notability guidelines when released and reviewed in reliable sources but not today. RadioFan (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Three Days Grace for now as a viable search term. The only information published about it was retrieved from the band's own website, and the article looks horrible as it is now. A lack of reliable sources covering the album, in addition to a lack of available information on it other than what the band's website says, furthers the idea that the album doesn't deserve an article yet. Within a few weeks, there will be some coverage, and the article can be recreated without 90% of it being quotes from unreliable sources. Tim meh (review me) 15:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect - Certainly not notable in its own right. NBeale (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have completely redone this article to drop all quotations. This link [1] contains most of the information that was sourced from their official website. I do not understand why we cannot use the band's official website though. It would seem that the most official news possible would come from the band itself. All information is sourced directly from the webpage it came from now and I recommend dropping the deletion. Jaj43123 (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thats fine but the notability problems are still there. The band's webpage may be used as a reference but it does not establish notability though. That can only be done through 3rd party sources such as magazine or newspaper articles, particularly those that review the album.--RadioFan (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note for closing admin I've just reworded the album's section at Three Days Grace, including all the notable information about the album that has been published by reliable sources. If the result is redirect, I suggest redirecting to that section. Tim meh (review me) 20:34, 14 August 2009 (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.