Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreamless

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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 03:04, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Dreamless

Dreamless (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)

I'm nominating deletion because of WP:NALBUMS. According to this, notability isn't inherited and requires independent evidence. There is only one independent reference on this page, which is to a Facebook post sharing the video with a comment. This is hardly going to add any credence to the album. The article states it has received 'critical acclaim' - no evidence to support this either. 'Create a whole new sound' - surely this is promotional material, and unsourced material at that. This article was published 28 April and it was released on 29 April 2016 - an album that hasn't even been released yet (WP:TOOSOON). I've previously proposed deletion for this article but the author objected, so I'm now taking it to AfD. st170e^talk 14:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Keep It's been a long time since I've involved myself in one of these discussions, so apologies if I'm doing it wrong. I would like to argue against deletion. While the article may be poorly cited at this time, there are many independent reviews out there which could be added. This album was fairly highly anticipated within the metal community, and it's likely it will debut on the Billboard 200. If the article is not deleted by Thursday, I will perform a cleanup of promotional material and add third party sourcing in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. --2601:18C:8800:4600:502E:AC1C:2F10:22FD (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

'It is likely it will debut' - WP:TOOSOON. Unless there are verifiable and independent sources, how can you prove notability? The article still hasn't been changed since I've listed this for deletion. 'This album was fairly highly anticipated' - I take issue with this because there is no evidence for this claim. st170e^talk 01:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• Keep as the reviews seem enough. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Please see my above comment User:SwisterTwister. I don't see any reviews of the like on the article that warrant inclusion. I don't think now is the right time for the article to be published. Maybe in the future, yes, when there is demand for it (i.e. through independent sources proving notability). There are next to no sources on this article and it is clear that this article was originally created for promotional purposes. st170e^talk 01:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• Delete WP:TOOSOON per nom. Article status certainly can't be determined on speculation regarding its debut on the Billboard 200 and unsourced hyperbole like "highly anticipated". The band itself isn't really notable either as their article has no third-party sources and its content is mostly ripped off directly from Allmusic. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• Poor article quality does not mean the subject is not notable. --Michig (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. Per WP:BEFORE, the following could have been found: Sputnik Music staff review, Allmusic review, The National Student review, The Music review, Metal Hammer (Germany) review, blabbermouth.net article with some detail on the album. --Michig (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Do sites like The National Student and blabbermouth.net (which reads more like a press release) really qualify as viable sources, though? sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I concur with the above: it's all great having reviews but is having a few reviews from a few websites worthy of making an album notable? I've had a look at the artist's article on here and the article itself only has one source. Again, I want to reiterate that this article was published the day before the album's release, WP:TOOSOON is the reason why I flagged this up. The reviews you've submitted are short, and although show some coverage of the album, it still does not meet the general notability guideline where it specifies significant coverage. But that's my two cents. st170e^talk 03:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

You surely can't argue that Metal Hammer etc. are not reliable sources. If the album has received significant coverage from reliable sources then yes, it's notable. AfDing this the day before the album's release seems rather hasty - why not wait to see what coverage emerged? The band's last album charted so it was always likely that this one would, and it has - 154 on the Billboard 200, 6 on Top Hard Rock Albums, 10 on Top Independent Albums, 15 on Top Rock Albums. So the article on the band only has one source - that's an indication of a poor article and has no bearing on the notability of the band. --Michig (talk) 06:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Waiting to see what coverage emerges goes against WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RISING. Articles should be notable upon creation; they shouldn't be notable-pending-further-coverage. I also want to point out that notability is not inherited. The band's last album charted - yes - but that doesn't mean that the band's next album should automatically get an article that severely lacks sources. It's way too soon for that. st170e^talk 14:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Common sense should trump any essay you care to quote. Since AfDs run for a minimum of 7 days, it was obviously not going to be unreleased by the time the AfD finished. I agree it would better if people waited until sources are there before creating articles, but at worst an album article created slightly prematurely should be merged to the artist article or moved to draft space. We don't have to wait to see if this album charts - it has already charted and it has already received sufficient coverage. --Michig (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Nothing irritates me more in AfD discussions than someone saying that an article should be saved because there are sufficient citations out there, yet they can't be bothered inserting them into the article. Anyway, one of the sources therein is Facebook, which is not notable. And no one said Metal Hammer wasn't a notable publication, so please don't put words in people's mouths. But a measly student newspaper, for instance, is not sufficient coverage for a metal album. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Nobody has argued that the sources in the article at the time it was nominated were adequate, including Facebook. AfD is for determining notability, not for forcing article improvement. Don't blame other people for not adding sources while an AfD is ongoing while you weren't even prepared to look for sources. --Michig (talk) 06:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• Keep Lots of reviews from well-known sources, plus the album charted, 154 on the Billboard 200, 6 on Top Hard Rock Albums, 10 on Top Independent Albums, 15 on Top Rock Albums. Plus, it has been released.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

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.