Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hollow Bodies (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   delete. This is without prejudice to me userfying the article for anyone that wishes to work on it.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hollow Bodies
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

May be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Album currently does not meet notability criteria, but it will by mid-August. I'm not opposed to keeping it, but not because notability isn't challenged. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as lacking sources to show in depth coverage. If extra sources are added to the article, feel feel to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Added some sources, they'll need cleanup. This article appears to (almost?) meet WP:NALBUMS. Jguy TalkDone 18:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources:
 * http://www.rocksound.tv/news/article/blessthefall-announce-new-album-hollow-bodies is primarily a track listing with some hype. Not significant coverage. With no author, not a RS.
 * http://puregrainaudio.com/news/blessthefall-reveals-album-artwork-and-track-listing-for-new-album-hollow-bodies has an author who appears to be the site's founder & CEO (http://puregrainaudio.com/staff/) but I don't believe that the coverage here is significant with the track listing taking-up over half the material, and I don't know that the source is reliable either.
 * Not sure it meets NALBUMS. Still a case of WP:TOOSOON. I don't mind having it moved to my user space until RSes can be found or are written. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  03:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's why I said it almost meets NALBUMS. I tried, I didn't think those sources would be very reliable after I added them (and looked at another case where a similar source was used and then regarded as not reliable). Learning. :P It definitely appears that it could meet it in the future, so incubate or support your userfy. I don't want to see an article completely trashed when it could be recreated as possibly something great in 8 weeks. Jguy TalkDone 12:19, 19 June 2013 (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.