Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Content (Joywave album)

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. ~~Nomination withdrawn~~. (non-admin closure) WikiEditCrunch (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Content (Joywave album)[edit]

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

Poorly referenced article with few categories and no indication of notability Jax 0677 (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NALBUM. DrStrauss talk 16:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was notified about this AfD on my talk page as if I created it however, I'm not the creator. Subject is notable and is covered in countless reliable sources. The page is poorly referenced but deserves to keep if improved. Meatsgains (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The album is coming fresh off the shelves so perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON to nominate it for deletion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGracefulSlick: or it might be WP:TOOSOON to have an article in the first place... DrStrauss talk 19:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DrStrauss: how so? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGracefulSlick: because of the sources you've provided, only 4 and 5 are in-depth reviews dedicated to the album itself. The others are about the artist, not the album. DrStrauss talk 19:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DrStrauss: okay [6] [7] [8] TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGracefulSlick: fair enough. Pinging Funnyfrets117 as they were the author - you might want to include these. DrStrauss talk 19:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: should probably wait a week or two before deciding to keep or delete, to be honest - the album has literally only been out a few days so any reviews are likely to appear very soon. The album already has an AllMusic review. Richard3120 (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Way too soon. Wait until it enters the charts at least. The "few categories" point is a poor one as well. Aria1561 (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to the sources above, the article itself has a Billboard (magazine) article dedicated to the album, which is about as high profile of a music source as you can get. Sergecross73 msg me 19:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Safe to say this AfD should be withdrawn? Meatsgains (talk) 02:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Adequate sourcing, and agree with Aria1561—a bit too soon. Ss 112 22:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While it doesn't matter much, as there are many reasons for keeping the article, and a consensus to do so, but you guys really need to actually read WP:TOOSOON - it's not a rationale for keeping articles, it's a reason for redirecting/deleting them. It doesn't say it's "too soon to delete", it says it's "too soon for the article to exist". Sergecross73 msg me 20:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:BURDEN, and despite the fact that the article is now fairly long, there are not too many reliable sources in the article, mostly YouTube and Twitter. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not accurate either. The sourcing is there. We've got dedicated sourcing from Billboard, Pitchfork, and AllMusic, all very mainstream reliable sources and viewed as such per WP:MUSIC/SOURCES. The WP:GNG is met. My point was just to alert users TheGracefulSlick, Ss112, and probably Aria1561 that WP:TOOSOON would be the wrong rationale to cite here, per my explanation one comment above. They're right to say that the article should be kept, it's just that WP:TOOSOON does not factor into those reasons. Sergecross73 msg me 12:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: I'm well aware of what WP:TOOSOON says. That's why I didn't cite it. I simply meant an article being created and then immediately or very soon after being nominated for deletion is not letting it develop for a little bit before it's evident claims of notability or coverage that would indicate otherwise is not forthcoming. Not policy or guideline-based, and confusing as it uses the words "too soon" as well, but that seems to a philosophy used in some discussions. Ss 112 12:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's fine, I was just making sure. You mostly said "per Aria", who they themselves had a very vague rationale. It looked like one or both of you could have been using it in the wrong capacity, as it appears GracefulSlick was. It's not an issue or anything. Just making sure everyone knew so it wouldn't confuse the issue at this, or future, AFDs. Sergecross73 msg me 13:03, 7 August 2017 (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.