Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aerosmith's fifteenth studio album (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Aerosmith's fifteenth studio album
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

While this would at first appear to be a subversion of WP:HAMMER, a closer inspection shows that almost none of the information pertains to the actual album. Most of it refers to the album only in vague passing or not at all. Last AFD resulted in keep due to sources, but see previous sentences. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Read if you are just going to post Delete: Hammer.  This shows how an article can be kept even if it doesn't have a title. Ten Pound Hammer has done a good job explaining why he is nominating this, rather than just nominate it and quote his essay.  TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 21:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP Yes, many of the 19 references are passing references, mostly to support a single statement in the article as in inline citation. However, several of the sources are fairly dedicated to the album. Again yes, that contains some "we don't know when it will be released" but that is verifiable speculation. Specifically, refs 1, 11, 13, and 19 consist of fairly substantial coverage from independent reliable sources. Arakunem Talk 21:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I can say that nearly 25% of the references deal specifically about the album, while a bunch more talk about it.  Everything is well sourced, and I see no speculation on here.  The album has been in the recording process for nearly 4 years now, but it is still good enough to keep.
 * Keep- We're not quite in Chinese Democracy territory, but at the same time, the subject has achieved enough notability that I see no problem with a separate article. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- Joe Chill (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per TheWeakWilled and Umbralcorax. Note:  This is the second AfD for this article, and even in the first AfD there was not consensus for deletion.  The subject did not become less notable since the last AfD closed; to the contrary, the article sourcing improved.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is well sourced and the album is slated to come out this year. I found it relevant and was glad to see it here when I specifically searched for this. --P shadoh (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2009 (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.