Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The People's Key

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The result was withdrawn. Still no indication of its future importance. — Timneu22 · talk 21:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The People's Key[edit]

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

No indication this album is important or significant. Probable redirect to band page. — Timneu22 · talk 18:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi, I'm Elyse Johnson and I am the author of this article. It is a relevant article, but I need help with html coding stuff.
Thank you,
Elyse —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elysejohnson1 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- HTML coding is not the issue, here. That can be sorted out collaboratively. What the issue here is, is this: Is this subject documented in depth, by the world at large, in multiple published works, by people, independent of the subject or its creators, who have good reputations for fact checking and accuracy? Is it notable, in short? (Timeu22 has used the wrong words in the nomination, note. This isn't a subjective standard of importance or significance.) Please cite publications which document this album in depth, from which a verifiable encyclopaedia article can be constructed. You can started by citing the sources that you obtained knowledge of this subject from. From what published documentation did you obtain your information? Point to it. Uncle G (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) There's no HTML knowledge necessary. Moreover, the problem here is not formatting; rather, the problem is that this album doesn't seem to have any notability (as it hasn't been released) and you have provided no sources that indicate it is notable. — Timneu22 · talk 19:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep at Pitchfork there's the confirmed album title and tracklisting. It is months away, but BE gets coverage and I guess by the time this AfD closes there will be new and useful information. - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep.; Pitchfork's coverage is one reliable source, see also this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this. I advise using google before nominating articles for deletion in this fashion. Ironholds (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Bright Eyes is a well-known band, and previous albums have been prolific. For example, the last album debuted at #4 on the Billboard Top 200. The announcement of this album has produced a lot of publicity (as the the links provided by Ironholds demonstrate), and the information already announced is enough to justify the article's existence beginning today. There is every indication that this album is important and significant. I have made extensive edits to the article, added a sidebar, added a properly-formatted reference, and have linked to this page from several other Bright Eyes-related pages, including the Bright Eyes navbox. Sfving (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2010 (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.