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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hollow Bodies (Blessthefall Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

An article about an unreleased album, relies on Twitter announcements, or short excerpts on a music website about Twitter anouncements. Certainly not prominent enough for advance publicity on Wikipedia, fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS at the moment. Sionk (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the album is already discussed to fair depth in independent sources that the article uses as references, making this pass the general notability guideline. 62.194.104.217 (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the album covers all facts that are available through first person twitter announcements and Music websites and magazines. More information about the album will become available in the coming weeks since the album is less than a month away from being released. All new information will be included on this page as soon as it becomes available. (User Talk:Wrestlingpunk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is precisely the same reasons I'm arguing for deletion. The article should be written when and if information becomes available. Information isn't available at the moment - no reviews or descriptions, only announcements that it will be released. As WP:NALBUMS says, "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article". The article needs significant secondary coverage, not brief announcements. Sionk (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I don't understand the nomination. I see coverage from a number of reliable third party sources, like AltPress or Revolver. The album is out in less than a month, and will be barely 2 weeks away by the time this AFD is likely to close. Seems kinda pointless to delete it now just to recreate it in 2 weeks. (Let's be real. Its a notable band who prior three albums are notable. If its not notable yet, it will be upon release.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There "isn't little more than a track listing" - there is a background section already (which could be expanded) and a good lead. There is no reason why we can't keep this article and wait for more info; it's only a month away. What a waste of time it would be to delete an article, then restart it in less than a month. Insulam Simia (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my comment above. If it doesn't meet the GNG yet (though I feel it does) then it certainly will upon its imminent release. Sergecross73 msg me 12:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Coverage is not yet sufficient. They are all trivial mentions. Clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Has been covered in reliable sources [1], [2], [3] and has been reviewed by Alternative Press. It is going to be recreated within days of its deletion anyways, so no need to delete when notability is sure to be unquestionable within weeks. Already has a release date, album cover, and tracklist. STATic message me! 11:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I forgot that one. Yes, it passes WP:HAMMER as well. Sergecross73 msg me 14:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Send back to Afc or user space until the album is released - Right now most of the press is just announcements of the upcoming album. A couple of the news reports are announcements of upcoming articles. There's no need, though, to delete it and make someone create another article later. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even with reviews from advance copies already rolling in? Sergecross73 msg me 16:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling in? Really? In journalistic sources? Maybe you could share some with us. Reliable reviews of their other albums are almost non-existent, so I'd be surprised if this was such a remarkable exception. Sionk (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Alternative Press published a dedicated review, which is indisputably reliable source, as a decade spanning print magazine, and has consensus as such at WP:ALBUM/REVSITE. (Its been added to the article.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Its notable. BlackDragon 17:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have uploaded Alternative Press review for you all to look at that, in case you need to do so.HotHat (talk) 01:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. First review. One more and it meets notability guidelines. I'm not sure why editors simply go on opinion rather than policy. This AfD should have closed within a few days as a move to user space or AfC and then brought into the mainspace when it met notability guidelines. When we don't follow these guidelines, it's harder for us to get rid of non-notable articles that have existed for months or years. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Within the first 2 days, this received 4 "Keep" !votes, so an Admin would have had no business sending it back to AFC. Even now, only one person has suggested that, 2 if we count you, who still technically say delete. Against 6 keeps. What you suggest, does not gel with a consensus that has ever existed in these discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 12:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Send back to AfC until as and when the album is released and charts. Previous precedent for this has been set by Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Applause (song), which (imho) is far more likely to be notable once released. In both cases, though it's a case of WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL - for all we know, the record label could suddenly go bankrupt next week and kill the release stone dead (unlikely, but not impossible). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See, I don't buy that argument when there's enough known about the album to meet WP:HAMMER - if the label went bankrupt next week, it'd be a huge news story and it'd get coverage as a lost release, get transferred to another record label, etc etc. Whatever the scenario, that would generate coverage to meet the WP:GNG. It's not just some passing comment by a band member about how someday they'd make an album; this is a finished product by a notable band sitting in a warehouse, already written/recorded/mixed, and being reviewed by reviewers with advance copies. Sergecross73 msg me 12:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The key word in your argument is if - none of what you said has actually happened, so it doesn't detract from the fact that it's just not notable enough yet. Would waiting a month be the end of the world? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was no "if" in my argument, the only "if" mentioned was in regards to what you said. I'm saying that no matter what the scenario, by this point, with the product this far along and already receiving reviews, its going to get coverage, released or not. (I've already argued it meets the GNG already. Not many reviews yet, no, but there's plenty of reliable music websites reporting on it and its singles.) Its upsetting that people waste their time discussing or moving on this sort of nitpicking regarding likely things when there's so much real garbage to clean up or delete. Why worry about moving it just to move it back when we can have it in the public space and it can be better maintained? Its a waste of experienced people's time to have to keep an eye and track this type of thing. It's this sort of Bureaucracy that deters people from sticking around, or leads to duplicate of even worse quality to pop up in the mean time. Sergecross73 msg me 14:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea why WP:HAMMER is being discussed, other than the fact it reminds authors there's no hurry to write advance articles. The title and track list of the album is known in this instance. The problem here is the lack of reliable advance coverage, apart from the one Alternative Press review that has been "rolling in". Sionk (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying, I'm all for deleting speculative articles that are titled things like Random musicians fourth untitled studio album or whatever, but that its silly to cite CRYSTAL when a notable band has an album article that passes HAMMER, has been written, recorded, mixed, mastered, and even released to reviewers, and have third party sources to verify all of it. Sergecross73 msg me 17:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Sources
  • Loudwire
  • Kerrange - 2 articles
  • Noisecreep
  • Pure Volume
  • Contact Music
  • Pittsburg Music Magazine
  • Under the Gun Review - 4 articles
  • Rock Sound
  • Alternative Press - Countless sources + Print version of the Full Review
  • "The Music" Sergecross73 msg me 17:49, 5 August 2013 (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.