Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seal the Deal & Let's Boogie


 * 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. (non-admin closure) st170e talk 12:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Seal the Deal & Let's Boogie

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

none of the coverage is significant and so fails WP:NALBUM and is clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON. I had a discussion about this with but the editor does not get it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. No, I get it, I just disagree. The album has a confirmed release date, track listing, is referenced by multiple sources, cover art, has a lead single that charted, etc. Just let the article snowball--the album is released in 2 weeks. There is no need to delete this article. IF consensus says it is too soon to have a Wikipedia article for this album, then we should simply redirect. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * None of that is criteria in WP:ALBUM so you don't get it. Referenced by multiple sources is the closest, but it's all trivial. There is no discussion of the actual album, the recording process, the musicians (ie. significant coverage). What is present is hype from their marketing department. Yes, the album will be released in two weeks and there may be coverage of the album then, but there is none now. And you hypocrite! It was redirected and you decided to add trivial coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not a hypocrite. I am against even redirecting this article. I was simply saying that if others agree with you, that it is too soon for this article to exist, then the page should simply be redirected and not deleted. I am not going to argue about this anymore, because it is a waste of my time. If only we were spending our time improving this article instead of adding bytes talking about its unnecessary deletion... --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to say that this nomination is a waste of the project's time. I apologize for that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Based on the existing coverage it would possibly be a merge to the band article, but come on, it's out in 2 weeks and the chances of it not getting enough coverage to establish notability are slim. The best thing would be to withdraw the nomination, give it a few weeks and if the expected coverage doesn't emerge, propose a merge on the article's talk page. --Michig (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. It seems like a waste of time to dele and/or merge the article, when it is to be release in near future. Toxophilus (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment That's not a valid reason, but understandable. What really should have happened is it should not have been created until RSes existed for it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:22, 20 May 2016 (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.