Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled 12th Studio Album (Megadeth)

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled 12th Studio Album (Megadeth)

WP:HAMMER, WP:CRYSTAL 龗 (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 13:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:HAMMER. This is for all the slobbering fanboys who want to be the firstfirstfirst to get out the information the instant that they hear a rumor. How can anyone be so blindly devoted? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Because you are a Deletion God wielding a righteous Scythe of Undoing throughout all of Wikipedia and we all can't wait to delete along with you...Oh, do you mean the article? Anarchangel (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Löschen~~ If the album is really scheduled for a September 2009 release, I should think there would be a lot more quality sources on this by now. If such sources are uncovered, I will gladly change my vote. -Verdatum (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a bit closer to what I would have expected to see. WP:HEY. -Verdatum (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge with Megadeth's 12th untitled studio album - there is enough sourced information to have an article here.--Michig (talk) 07:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Maybe Megadeth's 12th untitled studio album should be added to his AfD? Astronaut (talk) 10:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both this and Megadeth's 12th untitled studio album. The only place this upcoming album is being talked about is Blabbermouth. There's not enough coverage of this for it to have its own article, and neither a release date nor name is known. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 16:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - make them both go away until there is a legitimate subject to make an article about. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is further coverage here and we now have the album title, approximate release date, details of where it was recorded and mixed, who produced it, and the track listing. Seriously, how much do you think we need to know about the album before we have an article about it? This is more information than we have in most articles about already-released albums, and there is bound to be further coverage as we get closer to September.--Michig (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The announcement of the album title has given rise to several more news stories, including Blabbermouth.net, Metal Hammer, and thetripwire. Even if the album was never released we would still have enough for an article.--Michig (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, some of those aren't really reliable sources, but there seems to be just enough information in the reliable sources now to have an article; plus, there's now a name, apparently. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 17:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per my comment above. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 17:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge one way or the other - As well as the above sources, there's this one too: http://www.metalunderground.com/news/details.cfm?newsid=45415 I think it's safe to say there's an album due September with the title Endgame, and the "Twelth studio album" and "Endgame" articles together have enough info to warrant an article, but obviously we don't need both. So just merge one into the other. I certainly wouldn't see any point deleting both, not with only 3 months to go until it's due out anyway. 83.218.158.202 (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Now that the pages have been sorted out, my vote becomes a keep. 86.146.156.203 (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The stated reason for deletion was an essay, not a WP rule, one that proposes that things should be deleted because they are often deleted. Which only brings up the question, what was the rationale for all the other deletions? "If the name of a future album is not yet known, the album is very likely to see its page deleted from Wikipedia." could also be read as a threat. Furthermore, the premise that the upcoming media is unnamed, is no longer relevant. I believe that content from the 'Unnamed' article should be merged into this one. But the suitable place to discuss the merging of 'Unnamed' into Endgame (album) is on 'Unnamed's talk page, it seems to me. Perhaps I am mistaken. And would it not be appropriate to change the header of this AfD to reflect the new name of the page? Anarchangel (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Wikipedia frequently has untitled and advanced-notice versions of album and movie pages up. Untitled 9th Metallica Studio Album was up ages and ages before it actually came out, Bond 22 was up before Casino Royale was even out, and it should also factor in that the scheduled release date in this case is only a short three months away. It's not as if, at this stage, the album would be completely cancelled forever, why delete it now only to recreate it in a week or two? PolarisSLBM (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article has sources, confirmed tracks, lots of verified information. Deathmagnetic08 (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The album has a name now, and all the information we have so far has been confirmed. 70.169.130.99 (talk) 23:21, 20 June 2009 (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.