Talk:Beautiful Thieves

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong

Rock music Low‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Deletion

I noticed that this page was going to be deleted so I tried to add more information to the page. Is it in better shape now? Have I saved it? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.127.68 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added information about the single, as well as sources and references. I believe it is now accurate and that it deserves to stay on the site seeing as the video is being release in 4 days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.127.68 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but "Beautiful Thieves" does not yet pass the notability criteria for songs because it has not yet received coverage from reliable secondary sources (Twitter does not count as a reliable secondary source; see WP:PSTS). Simply because the band has made a music video does not automatically make the song worthy of a stand-alone encyclopedia article. Also, a music video is not the same thing as a single; many musical artists make music videos for songs that are never actually released as singles. There have been no details of a prospective single for "Beautiful Thieves" yet announced (release date, format, artwork, other tracks, etc.), so presuming that it is a single based on the existence of a music video is speculation. Currently there is nothing to say about "Beautiful Thieves" that can't be said rather easily within the Crash Love article, so I have redirect it to there. I have no objection to the article being re-created in the future if a single is actually released and meets the criteria at WP:NSONGS, but starting an article now is premature. Wikipedia is not the news and has no deadline, so there is no need for us to be "first on the scene" with these kind of "omg new single ftw!" type of entries. We can wait until the source material becomes available from which to write a decent, encyclopedic treatment of the topic. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found the source stating that it is the next single off of Crash Love. I believe them to be reliable sources, but I would hate to put work into adding them into the page, only to have you delete them again. [1]. I would love to know whether this is enough to deem it a single. --173.34.127.68 (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)David McGuinness[reply]

Sorry, not sure if this makes a difference, but I made these changes above (David McGuinness) before logging in, so here is my account stuff. --Blaqkfire (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain that tunelab.com is a reliable source by encyclopedia standards. Please see our policy on verifiability and our guidelines on reliable sources: we base our content on "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I'm not very familiar with tunelab but on first glance it seems like a source of the "random internet" variety (also note that it gives the release date to radio of Nov. 23, which was 2 months ago, but no actual single has yet been released). The only thing that can "deem it a single" is it actually being released as a single. As I said before, we can wait until some actual details of the single are announced (artwork, release date, tracklisting, formats, etc) before prematurely launching a separate article. Again, please see the notability criteria for songs. If "Beautiful Thieves" is indeed the second Crash Love single, then reliable, authoritative sources should begin reporting on it soon. We can wait for those. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well hopefully I will be back soon. I guess I should thank you for the clarification. Thanks and take it easy. Blaqkfire (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I just checked the band's official site (afireinside.net) discography listing and news posts going back to mid-November 2009 and found no mention of a single release for "Beautiful Thieves". No cover art, track listing, release date...nothing.A music video, yes, but no mention of a single release in either vinyl, CD, or digital formats. I also checked the U.S. iTunes and Amazon.com's music and MP3 stores...all I found was a listing on Amazon for an import (UK) version of a vinyl single with some cover art. But no details like track list or anything like that. The listing mentions "101 Distribution", but a thieves&gnr=&fmt= search of that label's site for "Beautiful Thieves" turned up nothing. It also mentions Polydor Records, but their sidte does not list AFI among their artists or singles. It appears that, if a single was indeed released for "Beautiful Thieves", it was not released in the North American market. It may have been released in the UK market, but the only source I can turn up for that is a fan site which does not pass Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I invented the cover art and release date. It didn't have any other tracks on it.

recordstore. co.uk/productdetail.jsp?productPK=unittest-vffvqqIE1vK7axCGqN3IEb-1 . ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 08:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "fansite" is an official news site of the band; primary sources serve as reliable sources about the subject itself. (Using only primary sources is not enough, I know.) ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 08:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies; I typed up a detailed response this morning but since it contained a "blacklisted" external link (to recordstore.co.uk) WP would not post it, and my text was lost. Let's see if I can recall/reframe my points:

I did not mean to imply that you "invented" (by which I assume you mean fabricated) the cover art or release date, merely that I was unable to locate a sufficiently reliable source to verify them. afinewshq.com is not "an official news site of the band"...afireinside.net is the official site of the band (they also have an official Myspace, Facebook, Twitter, etc.). afinewshq is, according to their main page, "an official blog for fans to keep up with and discuss the latest news regarding A Fire Inside." afireinside.net merely lists it as an "official fan site". Whether afinewshq has any actual connection to the band or their record label is unclear. What is clear is that AFI's own website does not make any mention of a single release for "Beautiful Thieves". Even afinewshq's discography page doesn't list it.

I will admit that after some searching I found the single listed at recordstore.co.uk at the following url: http://www.recordstore.co.uk/productdetail.jsp?productPK=unittest-vffvqqIE1vK7axCGqN3IEb-1 (apparently recordstore.co.uk is "blacklisted" on Wikipedia as an external link...if I try to hyperlink the URL it triggers a block which prevents my comment from being posted...this of course would make it impossible for us to use the URL as a reference; we typically can't cite retailers as sources anyway). Recorstore.co.uk says that the single was put out by Polydor Records, but as I mentioned earlier I searched Polydor's site for it and came up empty-handed. So in the end here's what we have: a retailer that we can't link to lists it, and a fan site mentions it based on that retailer's listing. But the band's own website doesn't list or mention it, and neither does the site of the label that supposedly put it out. This is problematic at best. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I posted the recordstore link above^. (It gave me a blacklist warning too, I just clicked the back button and my text was still there.) Is there really a difference between an official fan site and official news site? (What else do you post on a fan site if not news?) I've definitely gotten the impression from their posts that sometimes the label contacts them directly to pass them any news. It is weird that the single isn't listed anywhere. I don't know if this helps anything but this was sent in April in an e-mail blast from AFI's official newsletter: "To celebrate AFI's imminent tour you can get your hands on a limited edition 7" of AFI's new single 'Beautiful Thieves', available for you to pre-order now. Only 500 copies are being made! Each copy will be numbered and will include an exclusive etched B-side. Click here to pre-order your copy. The 7" will be released on 12th April." (+ the cover image) ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 08:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, I've been on their email list for years & didn't get that message, though I admit I may have just missed it. As for the fan site, unless they state an official connection to the band or their record label (which they don't) then we cannot assume that their information is accurate. As you can imagine, there are dozens (if not hundreds) of fan websites devoted to particular musical acts. Very few of these pass the criteria of being "reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Fan sites are self-published and frequently contain large amounts of speculation and unsourced claims. I'm not saying that afinewshq.com is completely unreliable—I'm sure that a lot of their content is accurate—but fan sites are assumed unreliable unless it can be demonstrated that their information has been vetted by the act or its record label, or unless they have established themselves as having "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and I don't see anything in their "about" section that indicates anything of the kind. The site is primarily a blog/community forum, less than a year old, run by 7 AFI fans aged 14-20...I just don't think it would hold up as a reliable source under encyclopedic scrutiny, especially when the band already has an official website as well as several other official avenues (Myspace, Twitter, etc.) by which to communicate news. In any case, the fan site is basing all of its info about the single on the recordstore.co.uk listing, so we may as well skip the middleman and just source that listing directly. I'll attempt to do so, but I don't know if it'll work in a citation since the site is blacklisted. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when did you get the last message from their list? ;P I'm pretty sure they're basing their info off what the newsletter said. I get you're trying to follow the rules to a t, but I think we should apply some more common sense here. So you're saying we can't add the fact about the 7" and its 500 copies, because we can't link to the store, the news site that reports it is run by amateurs, and it's not possible to link to the newsletter. But is it really such an outrageous claim that it needs some extraordinary sources? Is it really that questionable?

(By the way, is this relevant?)

As for the references, I linked to here: Wikipedia:Citing_sources#List-defined_references but you seemed to have ignored it. "These reduce clutter within articles, by putting all the citation details in the section at the end where the footnotes are displayed. As with other citation formats, these should not be added to articles that already have a stable referencing system, unless there is consensus to do so. When in doubt, use the referencing system added by the first major contributor to use a consistent style." Since I didn't restore the article but started it from scratch, I think I count as the first major contributor, in that sense. Can I/you change it back now please?

×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 13:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]