Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Fvck


 * 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 per WP:SNOW. Favonian (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Holy Fvck

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

At the very least this page should be moved to the draft space because it doesn't satisfy its notability at the moment beyond "It is a Lovato album". Draft:Esquemas, an album released weeks ago by a notable singer, is still in the draft space due to the lack of its own notability. If we analyze the sources here, only two of them are about the album. Source 1 (j-14.com) dicusses Lovato's career. It mentions the album but merely repeats what it is said "according to a press release". Source 2 (Paper) is about how Lovato held a "funeral" for her pop music career in January. It is too soon to determine if this album lacks pop influences to find it relevant here. Source 3 (thatgrapejuice.net) is about an I promise an emo-rock album, once again too soon to determine if relevant to the page. Source 4 (Billboard) is about Lovato announcing the album. Source 5 (iHeart) is about how Lovato "shared a stunning collection of new photos - once again teasing lyrics". Source 6 (Billboard) is about Skin of My Teeth, not about the album itself. This album will be relevant by July or August, but now it is too soon to have this page on the main space. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 19:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. (CC)  Tb hotch ™ 19:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Merge to Demi Lovato or Draftify. I had tried to redirect this page several days ago but was met with fierce option in the with comments like "release date announced WITH cassettes and vinyls put up on website (which, I would argue, makes it unlikely to be postponed), 2. lead single coming this Friday, 3. nothing repeated from the main article here apart from the release of the lead single. Also enough sources to make this notable already", then Restoring article and reverting Lil-unique1. Even a Holy Fvck Tour page was created so at this point it's getting ridiculous that its parent album would not get its own article. Please stop edit warring per WP:BRD and/or put it to discussion if you disagree. This page is absolutely fine to exist.. There is an established principle that other stuff existing is NOT a valid reason for an article to be kept. WP:CRYSTAL says " All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." - this is not the case for Holy Fvck. Beyond this, the article fails WP:SIGCOV as the artist's website is a primary source, half of the coverage isn't about the album itself and ThatGrapeJuice is a trashy blog with no editorial standards or qualifications. WP:NOTCATALOG says "Wikipedia is not a resource for conducting business.". Creating a page this early on for an album screams of promotion for the topic when the availability of coverage is so low. The artist could be dropped from their label, the project could be scrapped, the track listing could change as could the title. No one reverting the redirect has provided any procedural or policy reasons as to why a page was needed and a mention at the artist's page would not suffice. If that wasn't enough, it fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 19:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - that's all fine and well if the sourcing isn't there...but it is in this case. High level dedicated sourcing from the likes of Pitchfork, Loudwire, etc - reliable third party sources. It meets the WP:GNG. And they've mustered up a paragraph or two of content. Sergecross73   msg me  19:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * To recap, we've got:


 * 1) https://loudwire.com/demi-lovato-rock-album-holy-fvck-trailer-video/
 * 2) https://pitchfork.com/news/demi-lovato-announces-new-album-holy-fvck/
 * 3) https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/demi-lovato-holy-fvck-north-american-tour-1364078/
 * 4) https://consequence.net/2022/06/demi-lovato-holy-fvck-album-tour/
 * 5) https://people.com/music/demi-lovato-announces-new-album-holy-fvck/
 * 6) https://www.kerrang.com/amp/demi-lovato-announces-hellish-new-rock-album-holy-fvck
 * All dedicated to the subject. All considered reliable per WP:RSMUSIC. Sergecross73   msg me  19:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Information has to go beyond the existence of the album and has to demonstrate that the information is too much for the artist page. Creating an album page without a lack of reasonable information fails WP:NALBUMS and becomes a promotional vehicle. That's not what wikipedia is for. NALBUMS trumps GNG ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 19:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, NALBUMS does not trump the GNG, not that it matters, because you can still merge things that meet either guideline anyways. That said, your whole proposal is a waste of everyone's time. There's already enough sourcing, and someone already mustered up a paragraph of content. Why waste everyone's time when it's certainly going to created upon release anyways. It's not overtly promotional in tone, nor was it created by some sort of promotional SPA account. This is silly. Articles like this survive all the time. I'm honestly baffled this is so contentious. Is there some sort of factor among editors or the fanbase I'm unaware of or something? I know nothing of Demi Lovato other than they did a song for Frozen (I think?) and announced this album recently.  Sergecross73   msg me  20:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It wasn't my proposal to nominate for deletion. Its just standard content policies. You create a page for something when there is enough reliably sourced information to warrant one. TB Hotch correctly pointed out some of the information mentions the album in passing. Had the album already come out we would never create a page for this little information. Hopes for future notability have never been a reason to create a page regardless of how certain something is to happen or become notable. And you're wrong - NALBUMS has some precedence over GNG - if there were 1 million sources talking about the album but no information beyond the tracklisting and existence it would not be notable for its own page. "Articles like this survive all the time" is WP:OTHERSTUFF. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{  Talk  }- 20:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The core parts we disagree are the things that are subjective though. I merely say there is enough sources and content to warrant creation already. Absolutely nothing objectively makes my keep stance invalid. And your "we would never keep articles with this little content" statement is just as much OSE as mine was. Not that it matters, what I said wasn't part of my core argument, just an observation of someone who participated in AFDs for over a decade - the sourcing I found is usually more than enough to keep an article. Which is again why I'm baffled and left feeling like there's other factors involved or something. Sergecross73   msg me  20:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There are enough sources for Draft:Battle of Bakhmut (2022) as well, yet here we are (and before the lecturing "other stuff exist" comment arrives, the album has not proved any notability outside its title). (CC) Tb hotch ™ 20:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I know nothing of that subject, the history behind it, or subject area, so I have absolutely no idea if that's the correct decision being made there. Sergecross73   msg me  20:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Absolutely keep. A lot of confirmed information from reputable sources and a soon-to-be-released album (only 2 months to go) from a famous artist. Clearly the people have spoken and the vast majority have said keep. I love Demi, but I would vote keep regardless. Piratetales (talk • contribs) 20:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 20:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, they very clearly also said "A lot of confirmed information from reputable sources" so their stance is not a NOTINHERITED violation. Sergecross73   msg me  20:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * By "a lot" you mean a) it's title b) it's release date c) confirmed tracks. That's not relevant outside Lovato's biography. Please don't attempt to gaslight me becaue you will not succeed. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 20:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No one's gaslighting anyone. All I said was that your accusation of NOTINHERITED was cherry-picking their argument. Because that's the only think you commented on in response. Sergecross73   msg me  20:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is enough out there on this album, whether it's currently reflected in the sources on the article or not, to demonstrate that this is a notable topic, and it will only grow more notable as we approach its release date in August (two months away). Lovato is a high-profile pop artist; the album isn't just going to fade out of relevance before release, especially as they appear to be (or claiming that they are) shifting genres. Even draftifying the article is just delaying the inevitable re-creation of the article.  Ss  112   20:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And once that happens we can move the article back to main space. What's the urgency to have an independent page that merely repeats what Demi_Lovato already says? (CC) Tb hotch ™ 20:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Because the topic is notable on its own and therefore does not need to be relegated to a section of the artist's main article. I thought I made that quite clear. Is your plan to disagree with everybody voting keep? It does not and will not help your initial nomination.  Ss  112   20:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concern I can disagree with anyone I want to, especially when their comment(s) are poorly founded. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 20:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In fact your kept post is so flawed that you start saying, paraphrased, "Even though the current article is so poorly shaped that it's current sources on the article don't reflect its notability, the topic is notable on it's own because there's enough out there that accredit the album as notable". What's exactly enough? a title, an album cover, two confirmed songs, and a background full of speculation based upon what the primary source has said? I mean if that's enough to create pages, then I should start to feel free to create hundreds of barely-notable stubs on already existing topics that lack articles solely because a single reliable source backs-up a claim or because three different sources mention the same information. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 20:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody ever said you couldn't. I said it's not helping your case. Your nomination and assessment of the topic's notability is what's actually poorly founded. You claim there's nothing more than the existence of the title yet but that's categorically untrue. There's a lead single being released tomorrow, another track confirmed, the cover art released, a tour announced, the track list will be along in due time, and even more significant than all of that, Lovato signaling the change of their genre from the last 10 years of their career. That's enough for an album article to exist two months ahead of its release.  Ss  112   20:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Tbhotch, that's great, but there's more here than one source and it's more than a stub and only going to grow. Straw-manning and "what about this other stuff that's in draftspace" arguments are weak. Your disagreement with my !vote doesn't invalidate it. Your disagreement won't invalidate any !vote.  Ss  112   20:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What kind of question is that? What's the urgency in creating notable articles? Because we're building an encyclopedia...? Sergecross73   msg me  20:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Right? It's basically just arguing for the sake of it at this point. "Gosh, what's the urgency in saying that this man just died? His body's not even cold yet!" LOL.  Ss  112   21:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable topic ready to be expanded in the next few weeks and months. Unnecessary to keep it in draft space as a "full-fledged" article will come to fruition sooner than later. More websites have reported on the album since the article was first started too. The sources include events directly leading up to the album release and very obviously anticipating a new era, such as the "funeral" or the announcement of the lead single. Another website talks about the sound direction they're headed with the album. That source merely echoes Lovato's words on what the album will sound like. If that in fact turns out true or not can be debunked upon release but still be included in the final prose as it is part of the timeline. The background section is intended to document events that have lined up to the start of the era and, skimming through these sources again, I am proven right. Just a side note, I'm not a fan of Lovato, nor do I try to promote their album. I regularly contribute to articles of popular music. Lk95 (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. This album is coming out in 2 months and is a major studio album by a high-profile pop artist. I do not see a reason to take down an article just to re-emerge it in July? Makes no sense. Also there are MANY verifiable articles and sources on this topic, so that argument is not valid. HaysonDage (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is enough reliable sources on the album to make an article. CountyCountry (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Saying the artist could get dropped by their label is grasping at straws. Not only is it extremely ridiculous but this comes over as bias against them. This is not the first time an article for a highly-anticipated album by an international star has been created. The article will only grow from here and the current sources should be sufficient. 09:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's enough reliable resources, and that there is absolutely not a reason to take it down to just reinstate it. Nascar9919 (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per comments. They’re are many reliable sources on the article, I don’t see why we need to delete it. PopLizard (talk) 04:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per a more positive case of WP:SNOWBALL and, well, the sources are there. What more can I say?  danny music editor  oops 05:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per other comments. The reliable sources are more than there and the lead single is out, I don't see the point in removing this article when it's going to be remade very soon anyway. Bizarre BizarreTalk modern to me 11:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Looks like it's a snow keep ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 17:40, 10 June 2022 (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.