Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hats Off to the Bull


 * 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. Mkativerata (talk) 05:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hats Off to the Bull

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Future album without a reliable source. We really need a speedy delete category for this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - An article on Loudwire confirms the release date of the album on December 6th and mentions a future appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live. Amazon also has a listing for the album (with artwork) and gives the same release date. The first single from the album has already charted on Billboard. Track listings have not been released yet, but the album has been mentioned on several websites already., ,  It might have been a bit crystally to create the article this early, but several sources point to the same confirmed release date.   Cyrus      Andiron   14:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Amazon is not a reliable source. Also, this isn't about whether the album will or will not be released, it's whether the article indicates and reliable sources for that information. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Forgive me, but I'm not sure what point you're arguing here. I listed five separate sources that gave the same release date for the album. The band is notable. Their six previous albums are notable. The first single from the album has already charted on Billboard. I don't think it's a huge stretch to assume that this album will be notable as well when it's released in a month.


 * Comment Here isn't in the article since the article still doesn't have any third-party sources the article may still be deleted. Also, your five sources are not all reliable. Just because the band is notable doesn't immediately confer notability on all of their works.
 * PS. You're forgiven. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Alternative solution: Temporary redirect to the band's article until sufficient sources can be found to make the article notable by itself. ''' Sp id ey  104  02:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - There's nothing presently in the article that can't be replaced. If sources are found, and there will be sources immediately before and after the album's release, it can be recreated. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep — I was able to find articles about the subject from such reliable sources as Revolver, ABC News Radio, The Times of Northwest Indiana and KNAC. Also, earlier today Blabbermouth.net published the album's track listing. WP:HAMMER suggests waiting until the title and track listing can be confirmed, which as of today applies to Hats off to the Bull. There appears to be enough verifiable information for one to easily create a start class album article. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Remember here isn't the article. Please add your sources to the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - According to what documentation or policy? In all of the future album AFD discussions I've participated in, demonstrating notability in the discussion was sufficient and the articles were kept even though they weren't improved or updated. Fezmar9 (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Wow, you've gotten off easy then. The issue is that the article doesn't demonstrate notability. Until it does, it can be deleted. Maybe in other future discussions, someone's put your found sources into the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No. That is wrong.  Articles are not deleted if sources can be shown to exist even if those sources are not immediately added to an article.  See WP:BEFORE: the crucial wording of which is If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination.  Eluchil404 (talk) 09:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thanks. That's from WP:BEFORE, but this is not before any longer. The article must be updated. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't delete an article in such circumstances and don't know of any administrator who would. And if I saw such a deletion occur I would take it to WP:DRV where it would be resoundingly overturned.  There is no 'must' or time limit to update the article.  See WP:DEADLINE and similar pages.  Eluchil404 (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Then feel free to close the AfD. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that while it is true that there is merit in closing this AfD, I do not like the presumptions and almost WikiTroll aspect that this has taken on. Jab843 (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Which presumptions? I opened the AfD. I am the only one in favour of deletion. I no longer feel it's necessary. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2011 (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.