Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ritual (Oomph! 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  11:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Ritual (Oomph! album)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NALBUM there is one review of the teaser and this is not enough to show it meets the notability criteria. This should be a redirect to the group's page until there are multiple non trivial coverage of this album. The article creator has removed the redirect twice now without adding the required coverage. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you not read the top of the page? I've added in SEVERAL magazine articles covering the release of the album, not just the Overdrive Magazine version. As well as the two sources that I was in the process of adding when you nominated the page for deletion, I've also got the following posts:
 * http://bravewords.com/news/oomph-reveal-new-album-details-teaser-for-kein-liebeslied-single-posted
 * http://www.side-line.com/oomph-unveil-title-teaser-tracklist-and-artwork-of-new-album/
 * http://www.roooar.com/music_uk/news-releases-oomph--ritual-cd-in-january-8553.html
 * https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/community_feed/oomph_reveal_details_of_new_album_ritual_preview_new_single_kein_liebeslied.html
 * That makes at least half a dozen independently published articles regarding the release of this album. How many more do you want before I pass the eligibility criteria? Eddiehimself (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * With the exception of brave words it's all routine stuff about an announced album that contain a trck list and at best a quote from the group. brave stuff does not cover the album itself but is more about the group and a single than anything else there is no review of the songs on the album and they do not seem to have received a copy and only the teaser and this is still routine. Not enough in my opinion to meet WP:FUTUREALBUM. --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well your opinion clearly differs from what Wikipedia says about Future album releases:
 * "generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label.
 * Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources. Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release. For example, a future album whose article is titled "(Artist)'s Next Album" and consists solely of blog or fan forum speculation about possible titles, or songs that might be on the album, is a violation of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and should be discussed only in the artist's article, and even then only if there is some verifiable information about it."
 * In this case, the album, track listing, and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist, and independent sources. So regardless of your opinion, it definitely DOES meet the criteria for WP:Futurealbum.
 * Also, what's this business about the articles cited being 'routine?' A control+F search of Wikipedia's Music notability page reveals that the word 'routine' isn't mentioned once on the entire page. It's completely unfair to nominate an article for deletion on the basis of something that isn't even present on the notability criteria pageEddiehimself (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you read the part that states "articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release"? All we know is that it has a name and a few tracks. Who is the producer? Who did the audio engineering? Who did the mastering? Where was it mastered? What are the lyrical themes? That's what's meant by "reliably sourced information about a future release". A potential release date and a track listing isn't enough. It still fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM so it does not deserve an article. Also, you're looking for WP:ROUTINE.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Multiple reliable sources exist and it does appear to meet WP:Futurealbum to me. -dashiellx (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting that your comment is almost exactly the opposite of mine. Which reliable sources do you see? this is clearly not a reliable source nor is this. They have no author. No author here and only a track listing. is written by Eddiehimself] (yes, the other editor commenting here). From the article, https://overdrive-mag.com/2018/11/16/oomph-unveil-details-for-upcoming-album-ritual/ "Overdrive Editor" isn't particularly informative, and it's not significant coverage, as can be said for Daniela Vorndran's entry at https://www.reflectionsofdarkness.com/news-mainmenu-99/releases-mainmenu-166/18801-oomph-unveil-all-details-of-upcoming-album-ritua-l . So, I may have missed it, but where are the "multiple reliable sources" you write about? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I can't find any either. As of now, the album does not meet WP:GNG with the WP:ROUTINE coverage that I found. It's likely just WP:TOOSOON and clearly does not meet WP:FUTUREALBUM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Oomph!.  When the album has been released, and there are charts entries and/or reviews, then and only then can the article be restored. If the article still keeps getting restored without significant improvement in sources, then delete and salt. Hzh (talk) 13:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. While I can't say the coverage is resplendent, in a couple of citations the subject is treated in sufficient detail to establish notability.  Contrary to the discussion above, I found overdrive detailed enough and to be a secondary source of satisfactory reliability.  I would be content with merging the principal details into the band's main article (redirect).   AGK  &#9632;  22:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Bad quality, but all the problems can be solved. WP:NALBUM is fine here. Coltsfan (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2018 (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.