Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isn't It Now?

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't It Now?

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable album, no reviews found, few if any critical discussions of the album in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 01:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 01:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 01:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm a bit concerned about some of the details of this nomination - the album isn't out until September, so there aren't going to be reviews yet. And there's already a dedicated WP:RSMUSIC-approved source (https://exclaim.ca/amparticle/animal_collective_announce_new_album_isnt_it_now) in the article so I don't know about the claim of there being no RS coverage either. That aside, at this exact moment, it does seem to be a bit WP:TOOSOON to meet the GNG. But the album was also seemingly just announced today? So probably draftify it if no more coverage arises during the run of the AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 01:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The album tracklist was announced 7/24, but it has been confirmed since 2022 when the previous album was released. They were both recorded in 2021. The 2nd single from this new album will be released tomorrow 7/26. The first single was released last month. BRIAN0918 18:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Revising my stance to Keep - as I suspected, RS coverage was coming. Plenty of RSMUSIC sources wrote dedicated articles about the album, and I don't believe in redirecting or drafting when there's already coverage like this. It's still short, but its far more likely to be better developed in the mainspace than tucked away in the draftspace. Sergecross73 msg me 16:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify until the album releases per WP:TOOSOON. The source linked above is RS but definitely WP:MILL, but its existence makes be believe that there will be more RS once it releases. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revising my !vote to Keep, as there are now 11 reliable refs clearly showing notability. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per JML. Worth noting that you can also boldly move articles to draftspace without need for an AfD rather than just deleting them. I would recommend it for upcoming releases, especially ones that are freshly announced and have obvious potential for a good article in the future. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I agree that more reliable sources will be available once the album is released. Charsaddian (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to Keep after seeing the addition of more sources. Charsaddian (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article now includes 11 refs that are listed at WP:RSMUSIC, as well as some critical reception for the single, and background info. BRIAN0918 14:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Classic example of what's know as a WP:REFBOMB. All of the reliable sources on the page are mainly saying the same thing with some slight variation or small bits of added commentary. This is not what makes a notable subject. I stand by my vote above. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
REFBOMBing is more about misleading through passing mentions or sourcing content irrelevant/off-topic content. Its valid editorial philosophy to take exception to the fact that they're all announcements with minimal difference in content, but it's not really refbombing per se. Sergecross73 msg me 16:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believed the main criticism to be the lack of reliable sources. So that was my primary focus. The next criticisms were lack of content, so those sections have been and are being expanded where possible. BRIAN0918 17:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has about as much detail as can be expected for a just-announced album, and is absolutely "notable" by virtue of being the work of an artist with such cultural cachet. I'm not sure what the issue is with it existing. Musiceasel (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with the statements by Sergecross73 and Musiceasel. There is sufficient reliable independent sources covering the album that it satisfies basic notability requirements. Mburrell (talk) 03:54, 27 July 2023 (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.