Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vice Verses

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 delete. No prejudice against recreation once RS establish this title--drop me a note if anyone wants this userified until that happens. Jclemens (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vice Verses

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

~~WP:HAMMER~~ WP:NALBUMS says "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." Only the first has been confirmed. ~~All that is confirmed is one track and the title.~~ User deleted PROD notice, so now it's an AFD. ^TheWeak_Willed 20:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no tracklisting or release date --T-rex 15:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search shows no coverage in reliable sources. The fact that it has no release date does not in itself make the album unworthy of an article, but it makes notability very unlikely. The lack of sources confirms its lack of notability. It can be recreated when it recieves some coverage. Right now, the article's all speculation, and the sources currently cited are not reliable. Tim meh (review me) 23:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - Now that you've switched your argument to NALBUMS, it makes more sense. However, since this is Switchfoot we're talking about, there will be more leaked-out information shortly... Free (talk) ^(HRWiki) 01:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The band Switchfoot is notable, and albums of notable bands are generally considered notable. --Pink Bull (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited, and the album hasn't been released yet, so the WP:MUSIC criterion you're referring to doesn't apply. Even if it did, the fact that there is a lack of reliable sources covering the album overrides it. Tim meh (review me) 01:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, wait until album becomes notable. Abductive (reasoning) 19:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm going with WP:NALBUMS, but also WP:HAMMER. Bring it back once more info is out there than a Twitter announcement. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:50, 14 August 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.