Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unleashed (Skillet album)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The delete comments all came before the new coverage added after relisting. (non-admin closure) ansh666 02:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unleashed (Skillet album)[edit]

Unleashed (Skillet album) (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 absolutely have come to hate it when editors add albums that in no way meet WP:NALBUM just because there's a short press release due to a per-release video and a partial track listing. This is a clear case of WP:TOOSOON Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep IMO, Walter is being misleading. We don't have a "partial" track listing, we have a full one. It's available for anyone to see in the press release, and on the pre-order screen on iTunes. We also album cover, news coverage (including, but not limited to, Jesus Freak Hideout), promotion in the way of two official lyric video releases (one has almost 2 million views, the other just under 600,000). The album is even available for pre-ordering in online stores like the aforementioned iTunes, and the two released songs are available to listen to on Spotify. I contend this is not too soon, as Walter proposes. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 01:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not being misleading in any way. You have a listing of track names, but what are the lengths of those tracks? Who wrote those tracks? Also, what about the genres. Where did you pull them from? The one RS you have doesn't discuss the genre. The one at the iTunes Store is not a RS, but at least they know that "Christian" should be capitalized. I know the JFH press release (not a RS). I have seen all of the releases through the band's Facebook and Twitter feeds. None meet RS. Now, show us the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. breaking that down: significant coverage means that there is a great deal written about the subject, not a mention of the songs; reliable sources means that the multiple sources are all known for good reporting on the subject; independent of the subject means they're not getting payola for promoting the band and they're not just republishing press releases to fill space. I'm sorry, but when I looked I found that there are none. That's why I initially redirected and then nominated. It will be notable. Possibly as soon as eight weeks from now, but we don't peer into WP:CRYSTAL balls, we only create content for currently notable subjects, and this album, as of the first week of June 2016, is not currently notable which is why I have nominated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NALBUM. Also, there is hardly any material except for the track listing. The article as currently exists is specifically forbidden by the WP:NALBUM guideline. On a side note, video views is not a basis for notability. LK (talk) 05:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Video views is not a basis for the notability of the album on which it is released, let alone the video's. See WP:NSONG Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the references on the article say delete NO Evidence of notability Samat lib (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel talked to them about "trying new things" on Unleashed. Billboard magazine found out they "Feel Really Inspired", making their new album Unleashed. New Release Today staff writer Mary Nikkel predicted on how she thinks the new tracks are going to sound. I would say this satisfies general criteria for notability by now.The Cross Bearer (talk | contribs) 22:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the refs, but Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is from October and does not mention the album by name. Nor does the year-old Billboard ref. NRT is speculative, but interesting. Not sure this meets the coverage. However, the previous !vote that focused only on the refs in the article is not appropriate either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz you have a point i can read the reference article on billboard magazine [1] did not mention this very album ,,, so this source is not valid Samat lib (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Billboard magazine
  • Comment. I agree that it is too soon to have an article on the album (and it would be great if people waited before creating such articles), but that doesn't automatically mean it should be deleted. If we have verifiable facts that are not already in the article on the band, the first option should be to merge to the article on the artist. If there's nothing appropriate to merge, then a redirect should be the next option to be considered. I see that this was redirected and reverted. With what we have now, I think a redirect would be appropriate, but with only 7 weeks to its release, it would probably be a waste of effort doing anything but leaving this and seeing what coverage emerges in the coming weeks. --Michig (talk) 06:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Me too. I redirected and based on previous efforts, didn't bother to have an edit war over this. We need to stop allowing creation of album articles until they're notable and have admins lock redirects until they are notable, but they're not willing to do that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • There should be a speedy or admin oversight on this sort of article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  02:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Found a Blabbermouth source that talks about the songs and mentions the name of the album. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Good amount of sources on the article about the album and there is enough info about it at this point to just keep the article. TheSickBehemoth (talk) 13:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @TheSickBehemoth: I only see one. Please list the others. There will be more because this is clear WP:TOOSOON, but the existint sources discuss an album, but it's not clear it's this album. Only the recent blabbermouth addition is a good RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • This confuses me. If New Release Tuesday and Jesus Freak Hideout are reliable enough to be cited for reviews, why aren't they good enough to source the prose? That seems to me that it would smack in the face of WP:RS. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 22:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry. I hadn't seen either of those. My apologies. They are RSes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Unleashed_(Skillet_album)&oldid=1136723131"