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 keep. Despite the presence of a number of keep !votes that are accorded no weight whatsoever. Tim Song (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Suburbs (Arcade Fire album)[edit]

The Suburbs (Arcade Fire album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Apart from two track titles a release date, very little else is known about this future album. No reliable sources discuss, fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER JD554 (talk) 08:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 08:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. Remove expeditiously, please. Lionelt (talk) 10:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As of today the album has been announced and there are lots of sources discussing it. There may be some confusion in that both the song and the announced album are called "The Suburbs".--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • While a lot of sources appear to be discussing the album, are they discussing it in detail as required by WP:N and WP:NALBUMS? I'm not convinced, looking at those articles (and the two which have been added to the article) they simply mention the release date, the name and the co-producer: they are all almost identical in their brevity. Not what I'd call detailed discussion. --JD554 (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say so at this point... Though it doesn't quite pass the WP:NALBUMS acid test of having a track listing, I think there is enough other material (and potential sources containing other material) to justify an article independent of the band's article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is being updated rapidly, because the news was just announced. It will develop into a reliable article very shortly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.108.16.34 (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - article is confirmed as coming out. GiantSnowman 18:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Arcade Fire themselves have confirmed its existence and it has also been reported by numerous third-party sources.

  Ishwasafish ^{click here!!!}

  20:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - Obviously this should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.199.2 (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Why would this be deleted? It has been stated as a new album and several songs are already available. --Elixer022 (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: An album being confirmed as being released does not make it notable. Both WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS require that the album be discussed in detail by mulitple reliable sources. While this album has been discussed by multiple reliable sources, simply confirming the album's title, release date and co-producer doesn't meet with the detail required in my opinion. Do we have any early feedback from sources on the songs that have been released that can be added? Or anything that can be added beyond a release date and track listing? I've not seen anything. That level of detail may be forthcoming in the following weeks, but it isn't there yet. The article can always be re-created when the ablum is notable. --JD554 (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Could someone please explain to me the logic of deleting an article that would clearly be reinstated very shortly afterwards and will undoubtedly receive a significant amount of attention due to the profile of the act involved? While the details available are obviously limited (the release only having been announced yesterday), the coverage already is immense. Has anyone checked how many hits this page has gotten? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicell (talk • contribs) 10:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - obvously, it is a well layed out page that if deleted my be replaced by an inferior one, plus given the bands popularity and the anticipation surrounding the band, the article would be reinstated within a month anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashman1992 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• At the very worst (considering there are multiple reliable sources confirming its existence) this ought to be a redirect so why was it nominated for deletion? --candle•wicke 20:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• And it was also nominated within minutes of creation. --candle•wicke 20:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I nominated it for deletion because it was obvious that it would simply be reverted if I attempted to redirect without an Afd. Also there is no conspiracy with regard to the speed with which I nominated the article, I had already looked into creating an article following the announcement before realising it was notable. --JD554 (talk) 12:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: as mentioned above this does not yet satisfy WP:NALBUMS (nor WP:CRYSTAL), specifically because the track listing is unknown. Until the track listing, in addition to the title and release date, has been verified by reliable sources, information about this album should remain at the artist's article. Cliff smith ^talk 08:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn - Contrary to the last contributor, the article now contains the track listing. Edit: scratch that, got reverted due to lack of reliable sources for the track list. It seems that while there are track listing floating about, none of them have yet been confirmed. I withdraw my opinion.--99.253.247.155 (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think this album has enough notable sources to stay. --⌘ torpy (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw, based on information and sources added by Cúchullain. --JD554 (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or if that is found to be disagreeable by an administrator Incubate the article so it may be recalled in it's present form at such a time as when there is a confirmed track listing. While policy does seem quite clear in it's desire to have a full and confirmed track listing this particular record seems to have a big enough swath of other details available to justify it's inclusion; not least among which is the fact that single(s) have already been made available along with fair use cover artwork which will be deleted from Wikipedia without this article being kept. Aricci526 09:06, 2 June 2010 (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.