Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twenty One Pilots (album by Twenty One Pilots)


 * 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 speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT ( Non-admin close comment ) -KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions &bull;&#32;Email) 23:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Twenty One Pilots (album by Twenty One Pilots)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Still not enough content to meet WP:NALBUM. Previous AfD, Articles for deletion/Twenty One Pilots (Twenty One Pilots album), closed less than six months ago. Notice that the article is also located at the wrong location. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The citation is not enough and it has notability,orphan issue. Sawongam (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - has entered the Billboard 200. Karst (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That argument wasn't enough last time. Clearly its entry wasn't enough to constitute enough for an article. The fact it entered the 200 could easily be covered in a single line in the band's discography article. See !vote and commentary in the last AfD. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Similar to what I said in the last AFD, I think it possible that this album be comparable to Bleach (Nirvana album), where it failed to chart in its initial release and would have probably failed an AFD had Wikipedia existed in 1990, but went on to be very notable and sales success after the band had a later album release that was massively successful and won all sorts of awards. It seems such a scenario is very possible with Twenty One Pilots, with their recent platinum album and multiple Grammy Award wins. However, I'm not sure we're there yet. Is right now comparable to 1990's Nirvana or 1995's Nirvana? My main hang up is that we're still unable to find a single album review or RS that covers this album in detail, correct? Sergecross73   msg me  16:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I apologize if I may seem as a nuisance regarding the notability and creation of this article, I just feel it's notable enough to have its own article, I will search for more reliable sources and look for more professional reviews and see if I can improve this album's notability to be enough for its inclusion on Wikipedia. Coda16 18:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - it can be expanded on and it charted. Notable enough. --Jennica ✿ / talk 23:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * - Like what though? Literally, no one has found any in-depth sources on it, and it's been six months now. What would you specifically add? Sergecross73   msg me  03:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hm. This didn't occur to me, honestly. I think it's semi-notable because it's their debut album. It's probably unlikely that it would be reviewed by any new publication. Jesus Freak Hideout reviewed it and I've seen that on several pages here but I may be just grasping at straws now. --Jennica ✿ / talk 03:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, being notable purely because its the first album of a notable band is textbook WP:NOTINHERITED violation though. And I think that Jesus Freak Hideout review has come up in the past before too. If you look closely at the bottom, you'll notice the its signed off as "JFH Reader Review". So, I believe that source would fail WP:USERG. Sergecross73   msg me  20:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * And the JFH review is not a staff review, it's a "reader review" and fails WP:RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. I didn't find much reliable-source coverage but as a charted album by a notable band it clearly has some notability. Most of this is already in the band/discography articles, it just comes down the the recurring issue of losing the tracklist as we don't have an agreed way of incorporating these in discographies. The previous article was probably better, so I think delete this one as a duplicate, and if there's a better case in the future for an article on this album, resurrect the previous article and move it to Twenty One Pilots (album). --Michig (talk) 09:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947  00:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - Honestly, I don't really find any harm in including this article, it has a decent amount of sources, especially compared to some other album pages, and it has charted, on the Billboard 200 at that. It can be expanded on as time progresses. (talk) Coda16 07:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per all above reasoning. -- Aleccat  15:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So to summarize the keep nominations, there are no sources to verify notability, but because Wikipedia has lots of space there's no harm in keeping the article around. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * @Walter Görlitz - The article seems notable enough, though... (talk) Coda16 05:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not though. Who has written about it? Seriously? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:45, 19 March 2017 (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.