Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mojo (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. consensus that there is enough sources so that the article doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL and passes WP:NALBUMS JForget  00:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Mojo (album)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not enough confirmed info. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Much of the information provided for this article was sourced from Billboard, a music industry paper of record, meriting it a legitimate article for wikipedia. As the album is set to come out in the spring, which is only a few weeks away as of this posting, more information will be forthcoming soon. Darwin&#39;s Bulldog (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Can it wait until then? Spring could mean as late as May. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep has a title and a vague release frame, and sources. I don't see the point in deleting just to re-create in a few weeks.  In the unlikely event that the album is cancelled or significantly postponed, deletion might be amore viable option. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  03:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep I actually came here to create this article and was surprised to see it already here. But it has been confirmed by multiple sources and a track has even been officially released. Will try to add more sources.BillyJack193 (talk) 03:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This album will likely become notable when it gets closer to release, but at this time there is little info confirmed track listing and a "tentative" 2010 release date. Very little significant coverage in independent reliable sources; too much crystalballing to satisfy WP:NALBUMS. The sentence in the band's page is more appropriate than this entire page. --Volbeatfan (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is in compliance with WP:NALBUMS. The article has reliable sources (Billboard, and Rolling Stone) and does not list any information that could be considered crystal balling as per WP:CRYSTAL. The album title is confirmed, has a release date (though admittedly, vague) and a few song titles for the album have all been confirmed per the Billboard and Rolling Stone references respectively. Darwin&#39;s Bulldog (talk) 04:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would suggest finding more independent sources to prove notability, as well as find more information on this article such as a tracklisting and perhaps a more defined release date. Until then it does crystalball because of the loose time frame as a release date, and there is very little confirmed about the article.  I will do a brief search myself on your behalf.  However, I do not think the article can be saved at this point, and as I stated maybe as we get closer to its release it will be notable and a page can be made to satisfy Wikipedia standards. --Volbeatfan (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  —  Gongshow  Talk 05:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Already has several reliable sources to satisfy WP:N. Most future albums are not notable, but that is because they don't have adequate coverage.  This one does. Rlendog (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2010 (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.