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. Multiple sources have been presented, but there is no consensus on whether these are substantial enough for notability. Draftifying was also suggested, but I don't see what purpose this would serve. –  Joe ( talk) 11:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Eternal Atake

Eternal Atake (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NALBUM (and routine vandalism on the article) Seraphim System ^{( talk)} 04:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ^{( talk)} 04:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ^{( talk)} 04:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Passes WP:GNG with significant coverage from reliable sources [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. The disruptive editing can be dealt with via RfPP. AfD is not cleanup. Flooded with them hundreds 06:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I saw those sources (they are cited in the article), but a one line mention in a very short complex.com article is not enough to pass WP:NALBUM. Here's another trivial passing mention [9] Seraphim System ^{( talk)} 06:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Music Is the Weapon was kept at AfD even though its sourcing is much weaker than this. There are at least 10 independent reliable sources with articles dedicated to this album, more can be found on Google. Flooded with them hundreds 06:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Here's another one with two paragraphs [10]. They are all basically repeating the exact same information "Eternal Atake is the followup to Luv Is Rage 2 and the artwork contains references to the Heaven's Gate cult". In order to establish notability the publications are supposed to be non-trivial - this usually means something like multiple significant in-depth independent reviews (For example, Deep Inside the Beatles’ White Album, 50 Years Later) Seraphim System ^{( talk)} 07:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

This album is expected to be released soon so there's no reason to get rid of it now only to recreate it after a few weeks/months. The article content is properly sourced and there are information about many aspects of the album including the controversial album cover, snippets, live performances, potential release date and basic label info. This is a high-profile release by a chart-topping artist, it is exempted under the WP:FUTUREALBUM criterion. Flooded with them hundreds 07:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

The policy you reference clearly says generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label. I see none of that in the sources above. Look, I get that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and I'm not especially invested in the outcome of this AfD, but I didn't nominate it because I confused AfD with cleanup, I nominated it because based on my understanding of the policy and review of the available sources I didn't see enough to justify a standalone article at this time. Seraphim System ^{( talk)} 09:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

The guideline allows "a few special cases to qualify for an article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information", this album can be considered one of them as the artist is a Billboard 200 chart-topper. Other than that, publications rarely write a full review for unreleased albums like this so it's reasonable for this album to not have received any but sources like [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] are wholly dedicated to the album and aren't trivial mentions. Also, my example of Music Is the Weapon is more of a precedent than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Please give it some time because there will be more sources when the album is released, there are 2-3 sections, an infobox and some information about controversy that aren't suitable for merging into the artist's page so this should justify a standalone article because it slightly, if not satisfactorily, passes the multiple criteria. Flooded with them hundreds 11:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Flooded’s sources, which are largely reliable sources, per WP:RSMUSIC, and are dedicated to the subject. Could use some cleanup, but it’s definitely one of those cases where it makes more sense to improve than scrap everything. There’s enough for a short, notable article. (Also, routine vandalism isn’t a valid reason for deletion either. Let me know if help is needed with maintenance or page protection.) Sergecross73 msg me 02:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Sergecross73: The grounds for deletion is WP:NALBUM, not vandalism. I also should have mentioned WP:CRYSTAL which is not a notability deletion. Per WP:CRYSTAL the content about the album cover should really have been added to the artist's article until we had a confirmed release date, at the very least. This is routinely the standard applied under WP:CRYSTAL, and it applies to major big budget releases. Specifically Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content. We really should not have an article based entirely on speculative threats of legal action that haven't materialized and "cryptic" comments made on instagram. I'm not likely to change my mind about this, but the article can survive AfD without my support. And thank you for sharing the link to confirm the reliability of the sources, I'm sure that will come in handy at AfC. Seraphim System ^{( talk)} 05:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC) reply

I’d completely agree with you if the article was written according to social media posts and speculation made by editors. But that’s nit the case at all - it’s sourced to many third party reliable sources that dedicate articles to the subject. There’s a difference. Sergecross73 msg me 11:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC) reply

• Draftify I do not think this artist comes under the few special cases criteria as he has only released 1 album. We are not talking about an artist in the same caliber as guns and roses. The coverage is basically saying exactly the same thing as per the nom. This looks very much like a heavy handed effort by the pr people to get as much of a buzz as possible before releasing the album. It is not the role of Wikipedia to participate in the promotional machine. When the album has had some reviews then it will probably be ready to come back. Dom from Paris ( talk) 19:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC) reply

He’s not my thing, but he’s certainly comparable as far as modern music. Look at his discography. His last album went platinum and he’s got multiple multi-platinum singles, one that is even 6x platinum. I’d also like to note that it’s not particularly promotionally worded, and what is, could be easily fixed. Sergecross73 msg me 01:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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.