Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Back Through Time

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 Speedy keep. Concerns were addressed with new refs. Renominate later if notability of new article is in question again. Dcoetzee 23:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back Through Time[edit]

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

fails WP:NALBUMS. this album isn't even released yet and only gets 1 gnews hit. [1]. LibStar (talk) 03:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think, that these 1 gnews hit merits at least a redirect to Alestorm. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 19:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"back through time" is a common phrase and should not redirect to a band article. LibStar (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then move article to Back Through Time (album), redirect this to Alestorm and covert Back Through Time to a dab page. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 23:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The album isn't released but its notable and there are a lot of unreleased albums on wikipedia, do delete this one would be stupid --Caskaholic (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC) — Caskaholic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:NOHARM. LibStar (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user has only made 2 edits outside their userspace. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 1:38pm • 02:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alestorm per Armbrust. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 1:38pm • 02:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: References have been added. As soon as Napalm Records puts out a press release/product page and Amazon or some other notable online store lists it those will be added as well. But, if my vote fails to persuade any of you, keep in mind that this page will probably be recreated in a few months time. --Hybrid196 (talk) 06:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient references have been found and track listing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you haven't explained how it meets WP:NALBUMS. The sources merely verify its existence. LibStar (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:NALBUMS states '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' and all of that information has been provided and sourced. I also agree with Hybrid196 that if this article is deleted it would only need to be recreated again closer to the release. Oh, and there are now 2 results for the Google News search. NRTurner (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2011 (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.