Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 in heavy metal music


 * 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 no consensus. defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Given the high level of participation and the sharp divide, I believe a further relisting is unlikely to bring forth a sudden burst of consensus. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

2018 in heavy metal music

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I applaud the creator of these pages for being so forward thinking, but we're not yet into June. Just because a band is in production (or even announced a release date) does not mean that they will finish the album by then. I am recommending draftification and/or userfication until we're a little bit closer to 2018 and there are actually hard dates (and actual album names). Primefac (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I know it was too early, but I created this article after discovering that many bands had already planned or talked about releasing new music in at least 2018. Since we're not even close to the new year, I'd say redirect to Timeline of heavy metal and hard rock music. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  15:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  15:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect per article creator above.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 20:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is not too early, nor is the now linked for AfD List of 2018 albums which Primefac has linked to 2018 in heavy metal music for consideration of deletion. These lists are annual lists that provide listings of when bands are releasing albums or doing other interesting things, and the general requirement for notability is that each entry has to be supported in notability by an article from a reputable news source, which for both articles this has been done. I am approaching this from the List of 2018 albums. For the preceding year, the List of 2017 albums was created in June, not May, so it is true that List of 2018 albums is coming one month earlier, however there is in fact significant amount of press listing albums expected in 2018. Artists are stating in interviews and news articles that their albums will be released in 2018, and currently there is no article to list the announcements. An example of other articles that are stating results for 2018 are 2018 in film, which lists some films as untitled, and lists release dates that will have some change by release date, so it is a form of corporate planning, coupled with expectation of no delays, otherwise known as business speculation. Bands are corporations too (I think), and are also taking part in business speculation. For the article on films, there is even an article for three years in the future, 2020 in film, which is pushing the edge for speculation and fact. Another article is 2018 Copa Sudamericana, which lists countries that are attending, and number of berths, but is basically saying TBA for the teams. To Be Announced is a fair placeholder for unknown details, in this case for album titles. Artists create the music, but the record companies probably approve the titles, maybe later in the process, so the bands are stating their planned release dates, but are not coming up with all the details at once. It is not too early to be listing bands and album activity for 2018 if there is press coverage from acceptable news sources Mburrell (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I say keep since so many artists have plans to release albums in 2018. There's no guidelines (that I know of) that state when the creation of such an article can be created. For instance, some editors might think September is fine, yet another editor might think that's too early, so there would be the same issue. Since so many bands are already listed on this article and more importantly sourced, just keep it at this point. TheSickBehemoth (talk) 02:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect OblivionOfficial (talk) 02:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - 2018 is less than six months (181 days by my count) away, and many songs to be released that year are already in production. Bearian (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Your count is a bit off,, it's 211 days (6 months 28 days). We still have to get through June ;) Primefac (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Jupitus Smart  17:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep All entries are sourced, so they can be verified, and appear notable too. It's not that far into the future, and per WP:CRYSTAL, this will almost certainly happen.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 *  Keep or redirect "2018 in heavy metal music" - Keep, or redirect to Timeline of heavy metal and hard rock music. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 *  Redirect "List of 2018 albums" - Redirect "List of 2018 albums" to 2010s in music. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 *  Comment -, , , , , , , , in your future comments, since there are two articles in this AFD, please specify to which encyclopedia article you are referring. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep both, I would not object to a temporary redirect for either or both, if that is the consensus for now. Bearian (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 *  Query  Is this discussion to delete or redirect the selected articles trying to create a guideline for how soon an article for next years products can be created? Is there an informal rule to when an article can be created, such as saying 90 days out is absolutely fine, 180 days out is questionable but okay, maybe, but never 210 days out? If there are no rules, should rules or guidelines be created and posted, to guide users? Mburrell (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , I'm not necessarily trying to create a guideline. I just think a page that is 100% full of "TBA" (as is currently the case with List of 2018 albums) contains no useful information and should be either redirected, drafted, or deleted until there actually is information to include (at the very least, some Album titles or release dates!). I've made this case (successfully) in other venues; for example, we draftified the page on President Trump's judge appointments when it had no actual names on it, and only moved it back to article space when Gorsuch was confirmed. Primefac (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: Fails WP:GNG that states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.". Of the 22 references 18 are from "Blabbermouth.net", and each one has a link to the site which is advertising. The reference to the group "Ratt", in the section Artists with material in production, is titled; Reunited RATT 'Would Love To' Release New Studio Album In 2018, with emphasis on "Would Love to". The reference for the group "Scorpions" is titled; "MIKKEY DEE Hopes To Produce A New Studio Album With SCORPIONS In 2018". The group "Testament" is referenced with a title "TESTAMENT Hopes To Release Next Album In 2018". There is a policy What Wikipedia is not that includes Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and #5 states; Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors and this article directly contradicts this. There are no improvements to Wikipedia to ignore policy in allowing these types of articles. How soon should we promote certain subjects? IF we do not ignore policy the answer would be "never". This article is a collection of material that is original research. Otr500 (talk) 10:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, why should we not keep the histories of the articles in tact? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 *  Reply  - There is nothing wrong with Blabbermouth.net as a source. Per WP:ALBUM/SOURCE, it is an acceptable on-line source, where we must use caution with BLP, but fine for albums. Since when did linking to a news source become advertising? Agreed that if a review of the reference indicates speculation and not a statement of fact, that each specific incident should be removed from the list. Mburrell (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While consensus is to keep this in one form or another, further discussion is needed whether to keep stand-alone articles (both or just one?) or to redirect them (where?)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  07:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Both of these articles are continuations of annual lists, so even if the articles are deleted or redirected at this point in time, eventually both articles will be created and survive as stand-alone lists. The issues per the above discussions appear to be when should the articles be created, what constitutes proper proof of albums for release in 2018, and how much information should be available for the article to not be just vague hand-waving at the future.


 * Is seven months prior to 2018 too early? What is the criteria for content the lists must have before they are eligible to survive? As one user stated, per WP:CrystalBall, speculation is not acceptable for the creation of the articles, so if the news sources are speculating, then it is too early to list them. However, if the news sources are stating as fact that an album will be released in 2018, then it is not speculation. Finally, if the articles in general are listing TBA for album titles, does that indicate speculation at this point, or is a lack of album names not critical at this juncture? These appear to be the questions that need to be discussed to determine if the articles are to be deleted or redirected for now.


 * There might be other issues, so as the relisting segment states, more discussion is required. While I am not neutral on whether or not to keep the articles, I have tried to keep this summation of issues neutral, but if I have failed, please give this summation the benefit of the doubt and please let's discuss the issues. Mburrell (talk) 08:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The follow-up comment in the last redirect note is something for the article talkpages and not here.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 11:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we're going around in circles. See my comments above from 6 June for what I almost typed out verbatim again here. Primefac (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * ' "Delete" ' - we are not up to 2018, so I think it would be wise to wait until then before such an article finds its way into Wikipedia. Vorbee (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep or redirect to Timeline of heavy metal and hard rock music - the article has good references and its not really that far in the future. Worse case, I'd recommend userfing until we are closer to the date.--– jfsamper ( talk • contrib • email ) 23:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Crystal ball exercise. Carrite (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep 107.218.152.97 (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Does not make sense to have an article about 2018 before the year actually began and fails WP:GNG 173.239.207.50 (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 *  Comment - If I had to make a firm decision, I would recommend redirecting the article, at least for now. I also believe that there should be a somewhat significant section entitled "Albums expected" with release dates before an article entitled "2018 in heavy metal music" is created. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.