Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lead (EP)


 * 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. Editors are encouraged to add some of the sources indicated in this discussion to the article to prevent renomination in the neat future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃  (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 23:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The Lead (EP)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Does not come close to meeting WP:NALBUM. –– FormalDude   talk   06:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music,  and United Kingdom. –– FormalDude    talk   07:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I’m still new here, but I have noticed that there’s other articles that don’t have a chart and only have criticism, and only uses either one or two references. If we need to add charts or something, we gotta wait until there’s some sort of charting happening. - JuanGLP (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * DeleteI moved this to draft because it did not meet notability requirements. Now its back in main space with no attempt at improvement. Fails WP:NALBUM. See WP:OSE for why other articles have no bearing on this discussion. Slywriter (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - The album was only released the day before the nomination, so it is likely that more reviews will come in. That's because it already has a robust pro review from the reliable Complex (currently footnote #1 in the article) and its upcoming release was noted by the reliable NME: . Here's another possibility, those I am unsure about this one's reliablility: . The current version of the article is too dependent on sources that are about things the group did in the past, but get rid of those and the album already has enough sources of its own to justify at least a stub article. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 13:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * So it’s a keep? Because the EP does have reliable sources, since it has a Pitchfork review for the second single. - JuanGLP (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Both appear to be interviews and do not satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Slywriter (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You can do better than the word "appear", and if you read the sources in their entirety then say so. Are they interviews or not? The sources mentioned in my vote are partially interviews, used as background, but also include independent analysis by the journalist. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 15:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, they are junk and do not meet in-depth, significant coverage. Slywriter (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Complex- 1 paragraph on band, then 3 paragraphs of interview and closes with a fluff line that lacks any analysis.
 * NME- Intro that adds nothing, next paragraph is a rehash of the Instagram post included, next para the 5 songs included, 4 paragraphs of interview.
 * End result, zero indication of notability for the album itself. Slywriter (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * One thing missing from your analysis is why one paragraph of description is not enough. It could be a very descriptive paragraph. Also, the "no interviews" guideline is for sources that are entirely interviews of the softball variety, and lots of interviews are critical and analytical, and an interview can be just a portion of a journalistic article. I'm willing to consider that a matter of differing opinions on the sources already discussed here. Regardless, it is not very difficult to find additional sources that add useful information about the album, such as:, , , . The album article may have been created a little too early, but when information starts to come in, the WP:HEYMANN standard allows us to conclude that it's not July 7th anymore. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 19:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What was presented previously came nowhere close to meeting WP:HEYMANN. There may be something in the latest presented but think proves notability of the group, not the album and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Merge would be a better outcome.Slywriter (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:NALBUM with sources presented above. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment - This keeps getting relisted as if there is some insurmountable disagreement above. There was a disagreement 2.5 weeks ago when the article was created a few days too soon. In the lengthy period since the last person voted, the album has received even more in-depth reviews that can be added to the article:, , , , . I can do that myself if anyone has the wherewithal to finally wrap this up. Editors may be discouraged from improving the article if it remains in this purgatory state for weeks and weeks. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 14:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * doomsdayer520, I don't see agreement here or that the Delete votes have been transformed into Keep votes or that these editors have been convinced by your arguments. Sometimes relisting a discussion can bring in a few new voices that can tilt the discussion in one direction or the other. Liz Read! Talk! 05:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep - @ Liz, that’s correct since there’s no further discussion about the article’s deletion, it should be kept in the mainspace. Yeah there’s no "critical reception", but @SBKSPP states that the article "meets WP:NALBUM with sources presented above" by @ DOOMSDAYER 520, with reliable sources. Also, it funny because there’s many debut EPs being created with only ONE source in the mainspace. Anyways, after the sources are added, anyone is allowed to remove the warning sign. - JuanGLP (talk) 03:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.