Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love at the Bottom of the Sea


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Love at the Bottom of the Sea

 * – ( View AfD View log )

contested prod. Unreleased album, all listed references are press release reprints. Checked a handful of random google hits, they were also all Pr reprints. Fails WP:NALBUM Gaijin42 (talk) 15:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)



50/50 on this. The album will certainly be relevant upon it's release as reviews and articles will post worldwide. Since magnetic Fields the band is absolutely relevant, I guess let it stay with updates upon release. (Marc61 (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC))


 * [[Image:Symbol keep vote.svg|15px]] Keep — According to WP:HAMMER, since it's a decently major band, and it has a confirmed track listing and title, it's a keep. ~ neko-chan :3 (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or at the very least Incubate. Album by notable band released in about 9 weeks that will get plenty of coverage nearer to its release. For now, moving to the article incubator and leaving a redirect to the band's article might be favourite. --Michig (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. New studio album by significant band(reason #1) confirmed to be released(#2) by two significant indie labels(#3) in only 9 weeks' time (not long in record industry) with track listing and other details(#4), confirmed by three external, reliable sources(#5)? Super-strong keep.  tomasz.  18:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * the keep votes are not following the very clear WP:NALBUM policy.  That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article, the rules about track listing etc, are only that a page cannot be written before such information is available, not that it is sufficient. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NALBUM is not a policy and there are no 'rules' about tracklistings. WP:NALBUM is a guideline, and guidelines reflect consensus, they do not override them, and there is a clear consensus forming here that this should not be deleted.--Michig (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2012 (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.