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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic Monkeys 2009 Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

As yet unreleased album with no particular assertion of notability. Also, I believe it fails WP:CRYSTAL Tyrenon (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• DO NOT DELETE - This information was just released via their fb fan page, to suggest the AM are not notable given their awards is ridiculous. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not asserting that the band isn't notable. I'm asserting that their unreleased album falls short on notability.Tyrenon (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:NALBUMS. ninety:one 20:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't quite meet WP:NALBUMS. I'm going off of WP:HAMMER for this one. Are there more reliable sources we can verify with? If so, I'll change my mind. Note, Facebook is not a reliable source. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, their official website, which I added to the article. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough. Keep. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:HAMMER, do I really need to say anything else? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. The article only has one source, but it's a good enough source to prove notability. Sorry, Hammer, but your law doesn't apply here. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 00:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Verifiable and notable due to the status of the band. Quantpole (talk) 00:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI: the article should be kept, but that's not a valid reason. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 03:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, any band could put out a press release saying they are releasing an album, but they wouldn't all warrant an article. This album is notable due to the notability of the band. Quantpole (talk) 08:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your second sentence contradicted your first sentence. Notability isn't inherited. But we can move on. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • For the record, WP:NALBUMS specifically allows inherited notability ;) ninety:one 00:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - We've got the track list, the record label, the producers, the release date, and the fact this is a release by a significantly notable band. I think that is sufficient to pass WP:NALBUMS, even though they haven't figured out the title yet. Perhaps they will simply name it "Arctic Monkeys 2009 Album" and poke some fun at us. Grandmartin11 (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As we've got everything on that page other than the title (although I do like the comment above), this surely passes Wp:NALBUMS - and I also consider their own website as verifianle. (And, to quote Wp:HAMMER, "There are occasional exceptions to this law, as sometimes a future album will contain enough verifiable information for a decent article even if the title is not known". Surely this is one of them. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - This is a) notable, b) well sourced, and c) verifiable. Absolutely no rationale for deletion. DJR (T) 17:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable album by a somewhat notable group with reliable sources (i don't even know why this article was nominated). DeletionMojoMan (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was nominated one minute after being created. Quite a good example as for why jumping straight in with a deletion template isn't always the best solution. ninety:one 00:27, 6 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.