Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ten Stories


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Ten Stories

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Future, self-released album with no indication of notability. Notability is not inherited from the album's creator. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * According to the band's twitter, the deluxe version of the album has already sold out in pre-order. This is, of course, according to the band, but the independent sales website has already taken this item off of their website.  This would indicate the validity of this claim.  So is it notable that 2000 people bought this album at $40 a piece in 48 hours, before the album has even been heard by anyone?  Twitter link: https://twitter.com/#!/mewithoutYou/status/193179881188769793 and the online store link: http://mewithoutyou.11spot.com/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.249.27 (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Self-released album by a band previously signed to a major label subsidiary (three albums released). Radiohead's In Rainbows and The King Of Limbs records were self-released; still notable, no? 64.118.18.147 (talk) 07:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Comment. It's out in three weeks. Coverage is very likely to appear. AfD discussions about albums that are due out in a few weeks are generally a waste of effort - even if this ends in delete, coverage is very likely to appear that will see it recreated. --Michig (talk) 07:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Σ  τ  c . 00:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

 
 * My vote is to keep it. I have a pre-release copy and it's as good as the previous 4 albums. Self-release is not indicative on non-notability. While "[n]otability is not inherited from the album's creator", a consistent track record is evidence of the potential notability. Reviews are starting to show up, thus it would seem notability is being established days in advance of public release. Blackfyr (talk) 05:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | chatter _ 18:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

 Third relist rationale: Looking for some discussion based on policy. -Scottywong | confer _ 18:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, album will be released tomorrow, so it's definitely a thing. Here is one review that works. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Only four of the cited sources are non-autobiographical, and of those one is an interview, one is a track listing pointing to an interview, and two are music reviewer's opinion pieces that really don't impart much encyclopaedic information. On the other hand, the interviews do provide substantive content about the musicians' intentions and so forth, and do directly address this subject rather than mention it in passing whilst discussing something else. On the gripping hand, at the time that I write this, the envisioned objective coverage has still, yet, to appear; paragraph #3 covers the same ground as paragraph #1 and makes future-looking statements that events have overtaken; and the longest paragraph in the article is basically a catalogue entry describing merchandise from the band's own on-line store.  The article as it stands is largely information-free, being an infobox, some future speculation from the past, a sales catalogue entry (complete with price!), and a mere three sentences of informative content.  It should be needless to say that no secondary notability criteria about chart positions and so forth can possibly yet apply. Uncle G (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Even so, the album will be released tomorrow, meaning that any chart action should show up the following Monday. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Surprise, surprise, there is now more coverage: MTV, Sputnik staff review, louder than war. --Michig (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)...Punknews staff review. --Michig (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)...review from Christianity Today. --Michig (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Add Absolute Punk to the list of coverage: link-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 15:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per demonstrated third-party coverage in multiple reliable sources.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 15:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as per 3family6's rationale. Jonjonjohny (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep it surprises me that anyone wants to delete this page when it will so obviously be recreated later. This is a bizarre and overly bureaucratic policy that will prevent me from learning more about the album on Wikipedia. There are obviously news stories coming out about the album, not just subjective ones too. This: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1685077/mewithoutyou-ten-stories.jhtml and this: http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=2747902 are both good examples. Stop trying to delete this and start adding to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.8 (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article has been improved as to content and sourcing since nomination. Substantial coverage from multiple WP:RS sources is now provided in article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. More coverage: RELEVANT magazine. --Michig (talk) 07:13, 19 May 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.