Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood in the Water (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. Overall, the discussion is on the fence leaning keep, but history has shown us that well established bands always end up with articles on their individual albums, and while the sourcing could be better, editors here have shown it does exist. It seems pointless to redirect when we all know that many sources will exist in a couple of weeks discussing the album, good or bad. That said, creating articles too soon can be problematic, as this proves. Where it is out of excitement or to get your name in the first edit slot, it generally isn't helpful and leads to AFDs like this. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 11:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Blood in the Water (album)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable yet, little more that a track listing. Noah 💬 17:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  Noah  💬 17:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Months before release sourcing already almost meets GNG, there's already enough there to add to the article, band is notable.   North8000 (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Just because this article has more than one reference doesn't mean the album itself is less "notable". It's somewhat *notable" for featuring a new bassist who had joined Flotsam and Jetsam (also categorized as "notable") several months ago. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable, nothing more than a track listing. racecar   d (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Flotsam and Jetsam (band) until it is out. No evidence of this album being notable. 172.58.19.148 (talk) 02:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:NALBUMS. There are no WP:RS for the album itself. The two sources cited in the article are almost identical. The first says "hired a bassist, working on an album" followed by the band's press release, the second says "album's done" followed by the same press release; neither speaks to album per se. The article is WP:PROMO and should be deleted. A redirect to the band is a bad idea. A redirect should "help people arrive more quickly at the page they want to read", but there's a disambiguation page for "Blood in the Water" and another album with the same title (and once a WP article; PRODed), so Blood in the Water (album) should redirect to Blood in the Water ; this album can be added to the DAB page once it's released. Yappy2bhere (talk) 04:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I didn't completely think that last bit through. What I should have said is, no redirect from Blood in the Water (album) at all and prevent another article with that name from being created. (Is that possible?) If this article survives AfD, move it to Blood in the Water (Flotsam and Jetsam album) Yappy2bhere (talk) 04:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's actually a good idea. The moving this article to Blood in the Water (Flotsam and Jetsam album) part, I mean. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, album is as notable as all the others by the band, sources are there and there is definitely more to come soon.--Iconicos (talk) 10:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not true. The previous two albums charted, satisfying WP:NALBUMS. The three preceding them didn't chart but were each reviewed two or three times, sneaking past the WP:GNG. The album before those merited just one brief review, failing WP:GNG but still more notable than this album about which nothing of substance has been said by a WP:RS. So no, not as notable as all the others. Two articles from a single website consisting of a paragraph lede followed by a press release is by no means "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Don't speculate, show us the sources. Yappy2bhere (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Everything is accurate and confirmed (title, release date and track list) by Flotsam and Jetsam themselves, both on their official website and social media accounts, including Facebook and Twitter. 2600:1700:46B0:3CC0:9553:1F3:4ACF:E385 (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I know that it's accurate, what I'm saying is it isn't actually notable. Noah  💬 21:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "Accurate and confirmed?" Until the album is actually released it's merely WP:CRYSTAL. Yappy2bhere (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Flotsam and Jetsam (band) until the album is released, then, if it passes GNG, it can be recreated. As of right now, it doesn't meet notability criteria.  Onel 5969  TT me 20:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect per onel5969. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep This album may not be "notable", but Flotsam and Jetsam is. It was Jason Newsted's band before he replaced Cliff Burton in Metallica as their bassist. 172.58.19.174 (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Yappy2bhere (talk) 05:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename to Blood in the Water (Flotsam and Jetsam album): It has received some coverage recently. Aside from Blabbermouth, I found a few reliable sources which confirm the album's release date and track listing:, and . That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:FUTUREALBUM.  ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It isn't. WP:FUTUREALBUM says "satisfy the WP:GNG, and not before "title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label". The latter isn't a substitute for satisfying WP:GNG but rather an additional constraint. Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I've done a WP:BEFORE. The sources indicated by an IP user are additional constraints, while the ones I indicated, including Blabbermouth, definitely comply with WP:GNG and WP:FUTUREALBUM. I should know. I read them before posting them here. I have explained more than enough. And I won't reply to this post again. My keep stands. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 01:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Does the subject meet WP:GNG? A detailed source analysis instead of an assertion of meeting or not meeting a notability guideline is likely needed here for a consensus to form.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 16:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. ~  Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 16:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: As per previous. Please focus discussion on whether the amount of source material available about this subject does or does not indicate that it would pass the GNG.
 * Keep Meets WP:NALBUM per above. Sources presented are definitely reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect per onel5969. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep as there have been coverage about the album itself and its singles and music videos from several reputable metal sources, plus the two Blabbermouth cites currently in the article 👨x🐱 (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article's creator jumped the gun and it was not necessary to start the article so early, but if we delete it now it would be recreated in 5-6 weeks anyway. For the time being it has two non-trivial stories in Blabbermouth, among other outlets, and that counts as reliable coverage under WP:NALBUM #1. The article should certainly be expanded after the album is released, because it will probably receive some useful reviews thanks to the band's name recognition. No opinion on re-titling the article. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 01:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "it would be" and "will probably" is WP:CRYSTAL. The Blabbermouth coverage is trivial, as explained above--two press releases with a paragraph intro each. Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I concede to your point on the "crystal" standard for possible future reviews, but predicting that the article will be recreated is based on pure Wikipedia experience. I disagree with you on "trivial". ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 16:51, 25 April 2021 (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.