Deletion review archives: 2010 April

21 April 2010

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Songs from the Tainted Cherry Tree (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Article discussion was deleted (or i just cant find it, please tell me if you do).
The album article was originally deleted for failing WP:HAMMER. According to that logic it should be recreated since the cover art has been reveled as well as the track listing along with the release date, i now believe it meets with WP:NALBUMS.
Link to cover and tracklisting below : "[1]". Please share your thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by L-l-CLK-l-l (talk • contribs) 07:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The original discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Songs_From_The_Tainted_Cherry_Tree. I42 (talk)
  • Endorse close. WP:NALBUMS states "unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources" and "Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release". Merely having a release date, tracklisting and cover art does not demonstrate significant independent coverage. I would be willing to reconsider if sufficient independent coverage is located - all I could find was primary, retailer info (not sufficiently independent), or a single piece in the Daily Telegraph which was an interview with Vickers so still not really independent. Most coverage appears to be interested in the single. There is no hurry; this article can be restored when the album in released next month - and in the meantime it can be developed in readiness at Wikipedia:Article_Incubator/Songs_From_The_Tainted_Cherry_Tree. I42 (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the avoidance of doubt - the references cited by Hobit, below, are not the sufficient independent coverage I was hoping for. The articles are all about the artist and her single, and quote Vickers herself, who obviously has a record to promote. The mentions of the album are in passing, or primary, or both - they do not seem to anything like the "significant independent coverage" that is required. Now, an independent review of the album itself from a major source would be different - and as of today such a thing does seem to exist, at the BBC. It's not a favourable review, but it is a review - and I think it tips the edge towards notability. I42 (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but allow recreation [2], [3], [4], [5]m [6], [7] etc. would seem to meet WP:N. signed late: Hobit (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup, I agree with the unsigned post above. There was no error in the close at the time, but there are also no grounds to prevent a new article being created with the new sources.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Opps, sorry about not signing... Hobit (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.