Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time for Annihilation
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. Clearly the situation has changed since this was first discussed, and the most recent consensus is that there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to support a separate article. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Time for Annihilation
Relisting per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled Papa Roach Live Album. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to band. As is, the album fails ]
- Delete or Merge, per WP:CRYSTAL, we really should not have this hanging round based on Twitter etc, until there is more meat to put on the bones. Rodhullandemu 01:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Currently fails ]
- Merge. This info is confirmed in the page of Eleven Music Records.. UltraHeadShot (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. New details of album released today on Blabbermouth.net, a reliable source.Smaunsell (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to G. ツ 01:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as this fails WP:MUSIC. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 05:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, or Merge to Papa Roach. Omar 180 (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge; this AFD needs to be closed. Hairhorn (talk) 04:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Temporary delete? Papa Roach certainly isn't a non-notable band, so it's possible that the buzz and coverage for their first live album may spike after it's actually released. So, scrap it for now and maybe look at putting it back after release? Keyok (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Relisting comment. Please see this AN thread. Furthermore, this AFD was never transcluded. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – obviously there will be an article on this album in 5 or 6 weeks time (when it is released) so there seems little point now in this discussion (although in May when it was afd'd I might well have agreed). There's a whole talk) 09:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As Occuli points out it is only a matter of weeks 'til release of the album by an already notable band. When the article was first nominated for deletion it was crystalball-ish but it is now listed for pre-sale on Amazon as well as b&n [1] and Best Buy [2], various radio DJs have mention of the album in their blogs [3] [4], so it is not so crystalball-ish as U2's Songs of Ascent. To delete it now is just inviting a history-merge in a matter of weeks or days when someone else re-creates the article. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 09:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - many sources exist; arguably a notable album even before release, and even if it isn't, it will be very soon. ]
- Keep per those above - has ample coverage and release seems imminent. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2010 (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.