Talk:Life Starts Now

Why deleted?

Just wondering why this was deleted in the first place. There was enough information available, and there are quite a few other bands who have upcoming albums further ahead than Three Days Grace's and still have their's up and running, and several with less information than Life Starts Now had. 71.101.238.39 (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Life Starts Now

This is a new album by a multi platium artist and I don't know where you are getting that this is not notable. Please explain. Now only is this being sold as a pre-order on amazon, but it's listed on the offical website. THIS IS NOTABLE. If Breaking Benjamin's album that hasn't been released gets a page this certainly does. So don't revert it back to a redirect until you we get this settled. The IP user also makes a good point and I'll like to see you answer that. Also administers would have made that Afd nomination a no consensus NOT A re-direct. It would be no consenus then you would discuss the matter of re-direct on the pages talk page. I want this discussed before you re-direct it again. --Fire 55 (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

First, notability is not inherited, so it doesn't matter who created the album. Also, being listed on Amazon and the band's official website does NOT make an album notable. See the general notability guideline. Also, please explain how the AfD could end in no consensus. Consensus was clearly in favor of a redirect. If you think the deletion discussion was not closed properly, I suggest following the instructions on this page to get the closure reviewed. However, until consensus is in favor of keeping the article, the result of the deletion discussion still rules, and you are going against policy by reinstating the article. Also, as a separate note, it is inappropriate to use rollback to revert good faith edits, as you did here. If you continue to do this, the feature will likely be revoked. Timmeh (review me) 03:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know TWO redirects don't count as consensus. Not to mention you can take the quotes from this version of the article and reword it and it'll be MORE than enough to be notable, but someone just got lazy and just deleted it. [1] There is no excuse for not being notable. --Fire 55 (talk) 03:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

First let's look at the page of not inherited you gave and let me quote it "That is not to say that this is always the case (three of the notability guidelines, for books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in exceptional circumstances), or that the subordinate topic cannot be mentioned in the encyclopedia whatsoever. Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums". Now, lets look at notability shall we and I quote the page "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." Three days Grace is notable therefore the album IS notable. It also says "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." This article has IT ALL.--Fire 55 (talk) 03:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a collection of what Wikipedia defines as "reliable sources" to back up your claims? Fezmar9 (talk) 07:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't need to because of the this quote and this one alone, "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." It says if a FAMOUS artist i releasing an album and its confirmed by the artist it qualifies as an article. This alone is good enough.--Fire 55 (talk) 07:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Notice the word "may" in your quote. Also, let's take a look at the 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." This in no way implies that an album with these three things is automatically notable. The bottom line is that a subject must be covered significantly by reliable sources to be notable. You have not provided any evidence that this one is. Timmeh (review me) 13:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I am familiar with the notability guidelines. However, ALL articles do require reliable sources. Unreleased album articles may be created once enough information can be properly sourced just like any released album OR like in the case of Chinese Democracy, where even though the album did not have a release date or track listing, there were still enough sources available on the album for it to be considered notable. I believe an article was created in 2004 for Chinese Democracy, five years before it was released. A quick Google search turned up little to nothing, pretty much just a title, release date and the first single. Just try to keep in mind that there is no deadline, and this article will be created eventually -- just not today. Fezmar9 (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does because my last quote says it is notable because it has a release date, track listing, etc. ALL ARE THERE. See you guys are ignoring my first quote when you are looking at my second quote. The first quote says it may be notable if it was written be a famous artist(s). The second quote says it's notable if the track listing, title, etc. is this making sense to you. Don't you get that the second quote says that it does have sufficient notability of the first quote. You have completely misunderstood the inherited policy.--Fire 55 (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Your second quote says what automatically makes an album not notable, not what makes it notable. You're misinterpreting it. Now, will you please explain to us how exactly this album is covered significantly in reliable sources? If not, I'll restore the redirect per the deletion discussion and per the notability guidelines. Timmeh (review me) 21:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The quote says "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." It says an article shouldn't have an independent article until it's title, tracks, and release dates are confirmed. WHICH THEY ARE. You are completly wrong about the inherited part which you still haven't addressed. My first quote says it deserves an article because it's by a famous artist. You are still having trouble with this. YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT THE INHERITED ISSUE.--Fire 55 (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I still see no evidence of actual coverage, and you seem to be completely ignoring my arguments. Timmeh (review me) 21:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

YOU ARE IGNORING WIKIPEDIA POLICY! Which says that if an album is made by a famous artist it almost alway's is notable to have separate article. This artist is a multi-platium recording artist.--Fire 55 (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Please calm down; there's no need to yell. You're misinterpreting a guideline, not a policy. You have not yet shown me where it says that an album is notable simply because its artist is. It says it "may" be notable, not that it is. Timmeh (review me) 21:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said before the quotes could be turned into proper language instead of just deleted. That makes this all more than enough. now give me 10 mins and you'll see.--Fire 55 (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Your three quotes do not necessarily prove notability, as Timmeh and others have been saying...First off, you said "three of the notability guidelines, for books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in exceptional circumstances"...Note exceptional circumstances. You're third quote was that an album should not have it's article until it has its title, track listing, and release date, but that doesn't mean the inverse is necessarily true (meaning, it's not notable if lacking track listing, title, and release date, but not necessarily notable if they are released). And back to your second quote, you said that the album may be notable if the artist is notable...As was said before, it says may be notable, not is notable...And if it was notable under that definition, then it follows that it would also be notable in third-party sources. Just find some of those and prove it's notable instead of debating different interpretations of general guidelines... --Matthew Desjardins 22:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

ThreeDaysGrace.com is not a reliable, third party source. Timmeh (review me) 23:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I never said it was. I was saying that if it was a notable as he said it was, then he should be able to find "third-party source" (my own words) to support that. --Matthew Desjardins 00:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have avoided using pronouns for this...I was directing my statement at Fire 55. --Matthew Desjardins 00:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Matthew. I was actually responding to Fire 55. Timmeh (review me) 02:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Put third party references.--Fire 55 (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Ultimate-Guitar is not a reliable source. Rockstar Weekly may be reliable, but upon quick inspection I don't even see an author or article publishing date. Timmeh (review me) 02:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Wal-Mart

i went to Wal-Mart today... and Life Starts Now was in the "New Releases" section!!! obviously i bought it lol! but i thought it was suppoed to be out the 22nd not the 19th, whatever! still got it!! --70.50.132.199 (talk) 21:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"The Good Life"

I just checked out the 4th quote to see about that "The Good Life" peaked at number 85 on the billboard 200, however the IP address just took me to the whole albums songs, I haven't found any proof that "The good life" is a single, and it didn't appear on the billboards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.42.89 (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the link, which now shows that "The Good Life" peaked at number 85 on the Canadian Hot 100. However, it has not been confirmed as the second single from the album. Timmeh 22:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Album art?

I think a section should be added on the CD case art, like there is on One-X — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melonwater (talk • contribs) 21:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)