Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Past, The Present, The Future.

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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Past, The Present, The Future.[edit]

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

WP:NOTABILITY issues. smileguy91^talk 16:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Album by notable group with confirmed tracklisting and release date only 5 weeks away, that has already received coverage in the hours since it was announced. The fact that the album's impending release has been covered by major sources outside the group's home country should be an indication that further coverage will follow closer to release. Deleting now would be pointless. Coverage will almost certainly appear over the coming weeks. If we get to mid-April and we don't have sufficient sources (which seems very unlikely) we can consider it again. Bringing it to AfD only 4 minutes after it was created with no apparent discussion seems quite unconstructiue. --Michig (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to at least meet the basic requirements of WP:NALBUM (which is low bar to begin with). §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An argument could be made that available sourcing already demonstrates notability, but to Michig's point, why bother at this point? Article is being actively built up and is probably already a useful resource for readers. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 10:37, 26 February 2015 (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.