Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Rev

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. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 15:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Rev

[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)

WP:TOOSOON - no objection to a redirect. The only mentions of this are exactly that - mentions that they will be producing it, no meaningful coverage or reviews yet. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements WP:CRYSTAL --Morpho achilles (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or WP:Draftify. Οἶδα (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Incubate. JeBonSer ^{(talk | sign)} 08:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would rather that editors would create less of such articles but now that it exists and massive coverage is already out there,[1][2][3][4] we might as well keep it. If it can't be kept, I'd opt for redirect because of the quick re-creation. gidonb (talk) 14:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
those are all basic announcements that say nothing more about the album other than it will come out. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, User:Praxidicae, but that just isn't so. The sources I brought support a lot of information in the article, including the song list. I do agree that for any article that is released before an album or a film there is a degree of crystalballing but that isn't disallowed in all cases. I recommend AGAINST creating such articles and did so in my opinion above. I also recommend against nominations such as yours and then starting arguments with those who disagree. These kinds of articles and your kind AfDs and engagements unnecessarily stress the WP community that is better served by more work in the article space. Creators should have waited and you nominated and now started arguing about a topic that would soon have an article anyway. gidonb (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:FUTUREALBUM with sources presented by gidonb. They're reliable enough and go beyond WP:ROUTINE IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 23:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not a fan of future album articles created months before the release date, but this one is for real. Reliable music media sources have confirmed the release date, title, and track list, and therefore the article passes the WP:FUTUREALBUM guideline. Also, I'm not too familiar with the band, but if they have enthusiastic WP editors, someone will re-create the article immediately and then we will have to go through this process again and again all the way up to October, which serves no purpose except making more work for Admins. The album is happening, and despite being a bit early, this article is not hurting anything. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article looks fine to me, with plenty of reliable sources verifying the album's existence. Passes WP:FUTUREALBUM. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:31, 16 July 2022 (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.