Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Land Is Inhospitable and So Are We

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. ^Complex/_Rational 12:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Land Is Inhospitable and So Are We[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The Land Is Inhospitable and So Are We

Unreleased album that does not satisfy any of the musical notability criteria (because it has not been released yet). A check of the references shows that they are advance announcements, or interviews with the artist. None of them are independent secondary coverage.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	variety.com	Advance announcement of album	No	Yes	Yes	No
2	vulture.com	Another advance announcement of album	No	Yes	Yes	No
3	rollingstone.comn	Interview with the artist	No	Yes	Yes	No
4	pitchfork.com	Another interview	No	Yes	Yes	No

There was also a draft, so that draftification is not a valid option. The draft has been blanked. Moving the article into draft space until the album is released is the most reasonable option. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and United States of America. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Albums are not only significant when they have been released. The album has a definite release date, track listing, cover art, and more coverage than the sources listed on the article. There is significant and widespread coverage of this release already in music media. The four sources present on the article are not exhaustive, and it meets the first criterion, "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." Interviews with the artist are non-trivial. Also, what do you mean they're not independent sources? They were published by music media independent of the artist, meaning they are also secondary coverage as well. This is a misguided nomination for an upcoming recording by a significant artist (who has had multiple charting and widely reviewed albums). Ss112 08:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources in the article already make it meet the GNG. Blatant misrepresentations of sources. There's a difference between having some direct quotes and being a full-blown interview. Albums do not needs to be released to be notable either. Sergecross73 msg me 10:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Why does it exist? The album is about to be released, this week the lead single will be released. There are already enough sources that prove the notability of the album. Mitski is a world-renowned Japanese singer, so... ?Silencedoc¿ 13:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For the same reasons as the other voters above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Policy Comment - This nomination illustrates an incorrect reading of the future album and crystal ball guidelines. A future album is real and not a prediction if reliable sources have confirmed a release date and other key info. For famous musicians, which is the case for Mitski here, this can happen months in advance. This album article may have been created a little too soon for some editors' tastes, but the album is real and so are the reliable sources reporting on it. And finally, this nomination not only misrepresents sources (noted by my colleagues above), but it fetishizes the draftify process. Moving a functioning article to draftspace, then moving it back with just a few minor alterations several weeks later, is pure procedure worship that accomplishes nothing but confusion for WP readers. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the nom operates on the premise of a deep misunderstanding of FUTUREALBUM. Certainly there are problems with editors making promotional-leaning future albums, but this is not one of those times, and feels like a severe over-correction in the opposite direction. Sergecross73 msg me 14:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is no reason to nominate an album for deletion that has already proven to be notable and is undoubtedly going to be relevant upon release in a couple weeks. The album has already been thoroughly covered in news sources and publications which, as a result, justifies an article. Lk95 (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2023 (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.