- 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. There certainly is no consensus to delete. Album has been released; perhaps more references will become available soon. Drmies ( talk) 00:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
After Hours (EP)
- After Hours (EP) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Future release. Don't add albums before we know they'll be notable. WP:NALBUM. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Question - the creator redirected this title to a new, identical article at
After Hours (Glamour of the Kill EP). I'll add the AfD template there too. BUT - the articles were created with maintenance tags dating to Oct 2014, which I read as this being a recreation of some sort. Could an admin check to see if a page has already been made and deleted, and deal with it accordingly? Thanks,
ansh
666 20:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- And again, to After Hours (Glamour of the Kill album). ansh 666 20:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - The article now has references from antiMusic,
Rock Sound Magazine,
Metal Hammer,
Kerrang!, Bring the Noise UK and
BBC. --
Jax 0677 (
talk) 21:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- All but one of the refs are bad or trivial.
Walter Görlitz (
talk) 04:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Reply - At a minimum, the article should be redirected to
Glamour of the Kill. --
Jax 0677 (
talk) 06:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- That shouldn't be necessary. Neither "After Hours (EP)" or "After Hours (Glamour of the Kill EP)" are especially plausible redirects. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ Speak 04:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Reply - At a minimum, the article should be redirected to
Glamour of the Kill. --
Jax 0677 (
talk) 06:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- All but one of the refs are bad or trivial.
Walter Görlitz (
talk) 04:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 00:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 01:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Fails to meet any of the criteria of WP:NALBUMS. As pointed out, the sources are unacceptable, being promotional in nature or (in the case of the BBC mention) trivial. An argument could definitely be made for this violating WP:PROMOTION too, given that it's a fan-created article pushing a fan-funded album. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ Speak 04:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - Redirects are cheap. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 21:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Enough references to push it over the cusp of notability. It's been covered by most of the big alt rock mags already, which means those magazines will inevitably write big fat reviews the week after its release on November 17. Come back for assessment in December, after the reviews like this have moved to sputnik music and such. Earflaps ( talk) 17:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- The references are trivial and/or promotional, thus not indicating notability. And it would be insane to keep an article because an editor believes that there may be references available in the future.
ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹
Speak 22:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- Lol, waiting three days is insane? We must define the word differently, since Wikipedia
isn't in a hurry. Also, what's your opinion on
this reference? I assume there are others, haven't gone through more than about four google search pages.
Earflaps (
talk) 07:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think much of the review. Hit The Floor magazine clearly don't have much of an inclusion criteria other than "if you email it to us and we have the time, we'll review it", although if a band is willing to pay, they do "offer a fast track review service". Not what I would call a reliable source. As for WP:DEADLINE, it is only an opinion piece and one I personally loath because of how many times I've seen people use it to claim articles should be kept on the off-chance that their subject suddenly becomes notable in the future. (I'm not saying you're deliberately misusing it like that, just to be clear). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ Speak 07:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Point noted. About the magazine piece, I personally feel it's notable but then I'm not basing that on first-hand experience with the magazine, just impression. About their review criteria, I'm pretty sure most online music publications will write a review if they get a promo CD from a major band (and I'm sure money to the editor doesn't hurt), so I'm not quite clear what separates this magazine from, say, a Vice Media website like Noisey. Either way, still could use better sources, not going to argue there. I'll try and do some research today, help always appreciated. Earflaps ( talk) 12:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- The issue is that the article should not have been created until it was notable. It is inappropriate. Also, the current references don't meet RS. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Lol, waiting three days is insane? We must define the word differently, since Wikipedia
isn't in a hurry. Also, what's your opinion on
this reference? I assume there are others, haven't gone through more than about four google search pages.
Earflaps (
talk) 07:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- The references are trivial and/or promotional, thus not indicating notability. And it would be insane to keep an article because an editor believes that there may be references available in the future.
ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹
Speak 22:11, 15 November 2014 (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.
- 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. There certainly is no consensus to delete. Album has been released; perhaps more references will become available soon. Drmies ( talk) 00:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
After Hours (EP)
- After Hours (EP) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Future release. Don't add albums before we know they'll be notable. WP:NALBUM. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Question - the creator redirected this title to a new, identical article at
After Hours (Glamour of the Kill EP). I'll add the AfD template there too. BUT - the articles were created with maintenance tags dating to Oct 2014, which I read as this being a recreation of some sort. Could an admin check to see if a page has already been made and deleted, and deal with it accordingly? Thanks,
ansh
666 20:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- And again, to After Hours (Glamour of the Kill album). ansh 666 20:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - The article now has references from antiMusic,
Rock Sound Magazine,
Metal Hammer,
Kerrang!, Bring the Noise UK and
BBC. --
Jax 0677 (
talk) 21:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- All but one of the refs are bad or trivial.
Walter Görlitz (
talk) 04:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Reply - At a minimum, the article should be redirected to
Glamour of the Kill. --
Jax 0677 (
talk) 06:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- That shouldn't be necessary. Neither "After Hours (EP)" or "After Hours (Glamour of the Kill EP)" are especially plausible redirects. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ Speak 04:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Reply - At a minimum, the article should be redirected to
Glamour of the Kill. --
Jax 0677 (
talk) 06:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- All but one of the refs are bad or trivial.
Walter Görlitz (
talk) 04:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 00:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 01:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Fails to meet any of the criteria of WP:NALBUMS. As pointed out, the sources are unacceptable, being promotional in nature or (in the case of the BBC mention) trivial. An argument could definitely be made for this violating WP:PROMOTION too, given that it's a fan-created article pushing a fan-funded album. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ Speak 04:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - Redirects are cheap. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 21:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Enough references to push it over the cusp of notability. It's been covered by most of the big alt rock mags already, which means those magazines will inevitably write big fat reviews the week after its release on November 17. Come back for assessment in December, after the reviews like this have moved to sputnik music and such. Earflaps ( talk) 17:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- The references are trivial and/or promotional, thus not indicating notability. And it would be insane to keep an article because an editor believes that there may be references available in the future.
ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹
Speak 22:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- Lol, waiting three days is insane? We must define the word differently, since Wikipedia
isn't in a hurry. Also, what's your opinion on
this reference? I assume there are others, haven't gone through more than about four google search pages.
Earflaps (
talk) 07:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think much of the review. Hit The Floor magazine clearly don't have much of an inclusion criteria other than "if you email it to us and we have the time, we'll review it", although if a band is willing to pay, they do "offer a fast track review service". Not what I would call a reliable source. As for WP:DEADLINE, it is only an opinion piece and one I personally loath because of how many times I've seen people use it to claim articles should be kept on the off-chance that their subject suddenly becomes notable in the future. (I'm not saying you're deliberately misusing it like that, just to be clear). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ Speak 07:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Point noted. About the magazine piece, I personally feel it's notable but then I'm not basing that on first-hand experience with the magazine, just impression. About their review criteria, I'm pretty sure most online music publications will write a review if they get a promo CD from a major band (and I'm sure money to the editor doesn't hurt), so I'm not quite clear what separates this magazine from, say, a Vice Media website like Noisey. Either way, still could use better sources, not going to argue there. I'll try and do some research today, help always appreciated. Earflaps ( talk) 12:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- The issue is that the article should not have been created until it was notable. It is inappropriate. Also, the current references don't meet RS. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Lol, waiting three days is insane? We must define the word differently, since Wikipedia
isn't in a hurry. Also, what's your opinion on
this reference? I assume there are others, haven't gone through more than about four google search pages.
Earflaps (
talk) 07:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- The references are trivial and/or promotional, thus not indicating notability. And it would be insane to keep an article because an editor believes that there may be references available in the future.
ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹
Speak 22:11, 15 November 2014 (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.