Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axe to Fall

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. Tone 22:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Axe to Fall

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Durova³¹⁸ 22:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is well sourced, all information in the article is verifiable via the references. This article does not violate WP:Crystal the same way The Resistance (album) doesn't. From Crystal: we do and should have articles about notable artistic works. Metty (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Everything in this article has been verified through reliable sources (with an exception for the three Twitter sources, which could be replaced). The guideline at WP:NALBUM states "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." All of which have been confirmed. Fezmar9 (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly Userify because it is likely that this may achieve notability after the album is released. I don't agree with the "not a crystal ball" rationale for deletion--there's nothing wrong with covering albums before they're released--but only if they're notable. I don't think this is notable. From what I see, NoiseCreep is essentially a blogging site, hardly a reliable source usable to establish notability. The other sources may be legit (I don't really know, I could be convinced otherwise) as sources, but the articles cited are extremely brief and do not seem to come close to the sort of "significant coverage" required to establish notability. I think the creation of this article was jumping the gun. I would support userifying it though...with the idea that it could be restored later if it becomes notable. I think the NALBUM cited is giving an example of something necessary BEFORE creation of the page--but I don't think that's automatically sufficient--plenty of non-notable albums have their track listing published! Cazort (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In some circumstances, notability can be inherited. According to the music notability guidelines "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." This is an officially released studio album from a notable band. That, coupled with the sources that are present, surely give this article sufficient notability. Fezmar9 (talk) 05:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That article clearly describes albums that have been officially released, and this one has not! And even if it had been released, I'm not convinced that this comes anywhere near close to the case of inheritance that you describe. Cazort (talk) 04:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's not notable now, it doesn't exist now, and it doesn't deserve an article now. NTK (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article was well sourced and all information in the article was verifiable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- certainly seems to pass the requirements for future albums, IE: album name, track listing, that sort of thing. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sufficient coverage already to meet the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can only assume that the assertions of non-notability were made before the addition of all of the coverage in notable magazines and publications. Unless there is a straight-up 'all future album articles' criterion for deletion, this should remain. By the way, I'm partisan here. Seegoon (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2009 (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.