Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slayer 10th 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. Nja 247 13:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Slayer 10th Album

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but people forget...  C  anniba loki  04:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it's not a crystal ball. However, there has been an announcement by the record label of the release date of the album therefore it is confirmed that the album will be released and is not just "coming sometime or maybe not at all". It is confirmed and I've supplied a reference to say so. I completely agree that if nothing is confirmed then pages should not be created as they are just theories or rumours. But I'll say it again, this has been confirmed. When more details are available then more can be added. The confirmation of a release date is the beginning of something. Otherwise, the logic follows that nothing goes up on Wikipedia until completion eg ABC Construction announce they will build the biggest building in the world and will be completed on xx/xx/xxxx but a page is not able be added until it has actually been built. I hope my reasoning makes sense. Smaunsell (talk) 04:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTALHAMMER. Wait until you at least have a name and more than one external reference. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  06:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Again, that WP:CRYSTALHAMMER page speaks of people basing their "information off rumors posted to message boards, blogs or MySpace". These are not rumours. The reference is a legit official announcement. As for the 'more than one external reference' matter, what is the limit to number of references required before something is accepted??? Another reference has been added. Smaunsell (talk) 06:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It also says "If the name of a future album is not yet known, the album is very likely to see its page deleted from Wikipedia." That's exactly what this is, making it nothing but speculation. You don't even know what the album is called yet...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 04:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems to be verifiable sourced information, release dates, and a single. Ngaskill (talk) 08:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTALHAMMER The information in the article is not sufficient to maintain a separate article. It should've been included in the main band article. Even with a release date mentioned it can still be pushed back and existence alone is not enough, there has to be information to share for an article to be viable. - Mgm|(talk) 10:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Significant coverage in Rolling Stone is sufficient to justify the article, with the album only 2 months away. If we delete this now, as soon as a few more news stories come out it will no doubt get recreated.--Michig (talk) 10:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree, even though this one just barely falls under WP:HAMMER, the sources give barely any information at all. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 14:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep it meets the miminal requirement for anew album. And keep in mind DONTQUOTEPERSONALESSAYSASPOLICY. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool, but under ground of what this article "meets the miminal requirement for a new album?"--  C  anniba loki  16:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Kinda like what you're doing, with your own essay, Richard? -- Blue Squadron  Raven  16:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  —-- Avant-garde a clue - hexa  Chord 2  09:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The 7 July release date was evidently not correct - I have updated the article with latest details. The later release date may weaken the case for keeping this but the additional coverage is in my view enough to keep it.--Michig (talk) 09:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop - HAMMERTIME (Delete) (I love it when I get to do that)--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 04:15, 15 May 2009 (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.