Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trench (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The result was withdrawn. Hayman30 (talk) 19:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Trench (album)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is not enough information to sustain am album article. The information in the article is about awards won by the previous album. No track listing. No studio name(s). No musicians. No producer(s). No audio engineer(s). No mixer(s). While WP:HAMMERTIME is only an essay, it applies. I'd also be fine with a locked redirect to keep the fans from creating a trivial article. I'd also be fine with a block for any editor who reverted the redirect if it lasts until the album is released. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NALBUM and several other sensible guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * With misinformation abounding, just one more reason to delete (or redirect) with a lock. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Seems kind of pathetic to want to delete a page for an album we lack information on when there are other pages just like it (example: The 1975's next album A Brief Inquiry into Online Relationships, which similarly lacks a known track listing, producers, etc.). Just saying, my guy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.36.78 (talk) 02:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: Why? It is a notable album, by a notable duo. Instead of blocking people ho created this article, in good faith, and deleting the article, we should keep it and let people improve the page. We are going to need to create an article for this eventually. It has plenty of background info, especially for an album that was just announced yesterday. Also, I hope you don't mean that I should be blocked. I just recreated the page, with more sources, and when it was redirected, I didn't revert the redirect. Bowling is life (talk) 03:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not a notable album as there's are no sources about the album itself. We are going to need to create an article for it but now, it's WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll step back from that comment and allow explain exactly which notability criteria the album currently meets. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:GNG says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Google "Twenty One Pilots" or "Twenty One Pilots Trench" and you will see plenty of sources talking about this album. Since the album is getting significant media coverage and it is by a notable group, the article should be kept. Bowling is life (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * But that's the point, it's not getting significant coverage yet. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Simple Google search: Billboard, Kerrang, Spin, Alternative Press, New York Times, Rock Sound, and Daily mail. That is not even close to all of the reliable sources tlking about this album. How is that not significant coverage? Bowling is life (talk) 02:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That certainly is a lot of fluff, but I'm not going to be able to convince true fanatics that their band's album isn't notable so I'll make you a deal, I'll withdraw the nomination and I'll stop watching all of the band's articles to remove vandalism or you admit that there isn't enough information about the album itself to merit an album now (which is undeniable). Let me know. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not a crazy TOP fan, don't associate me with their crazy fan base. I am just here to help. I'll work on the article as much as soon. We have a deal. Bowling is life (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: I'd say it's pretty silly to continuously delete this album article, it currently has many notable sources and will obviously be built upon over time. Coda16 04:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What's silly is to continuously create an article without sources for a subject that fails any notability criteria, and to fill that article with information unrelated to it and claim that this information somehow makes the album notable. All the information in the article is in the band's bigoraphy article so no redirect is required anywhere. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Stepping back here and asking to indicate which of the sources actually discuss the album. I don't disagree that there are many sources in the article, but they discuss information about the band and the previous album, not this one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per arguments above. DovahDuck (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * But the arguments above are all invalid. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree. DovahDuck (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2018
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I withdraw my nomination because there is no guideline or policy that can show notability but I won't be heard by admins. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, just let the article snowball. And in the future, please consider redirecting pages that serve a purpose instead of nominating for deletion, thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:28, 14 July 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.