Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dear Tommy

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. Article has been improved since nomination. The "keep" voters proved that the album has received enough coverage despite being unreleased. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tommy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Unreleased and non-existent album that is little more than a proposed title. Sources indicate that the band announced an album of this title in 2014, recorded at least two different versions, then gave up with no further news after 2018. Some songs were leaked online then withdrawn. This is all relevant to the band's general history and can be described at their article, but the item never became a self-contained "album" that qualifies for an album-specific article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the article is filled with reliable sources discussing the album by name over the years. "Just a proposed title" feels like a gross understatement. (My apologies to the nominating, I know we differ in our stance of how to handle unreleased albums.) Coverage from Billboard, Pitchfork, Spin, NPR, NME, etc - this album received dedicated coverage from mainstream reliable sources. It meets the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 22:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect To the bands page, and transfer over any relevant information about it there. Seacactus 13 (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Agree with Seacactus 13—this information seems more suited to the band's main article. I created the article for the band's preceding album and I was confused at the time why this had an article when it looked like it was not going to come out. I'm usually of the belief that unless an unreleased album has achieved some kind of cultural notoriety due to its long-delayed status it shouldn't have a separate article. This hasn't achieved anywhere near that amount of coverage. On a side note, the article having an infobox with just a label in it looks ridiculous. We're really not offering a lot of information on this article—it's basically just a paragraph. A well-sourced one to be sure, but still essentially just a paragraph. Ss112 08:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect The article has reliable sources and should be directed to bands page.Dmnclefebvre (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC) — Dmnclefebvre (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Why? You didn't give any reason or rationale. Sergecross73 msg me 14:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer - Editor has since been check user blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 16:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:GNG per Sergecross' argument. The sources in the article are reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Unquestionably keep - it's a significant recording with a unique and well-sourced backstory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.7.130 (talk • contribs) 9 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep or Redirect: The article is little more than background, and can appropriately be merged to the main article. No official track listing, no release date. There's certainly a cult status to this album, but I wouldn't say it's an exceptionally high-profile project, per WP:FUTUREALBUM. The band has also broken up in the time since this deletion nomination was made, so is there no reason to believe this album will ever be released? The article, however, has no reason for deletion. Οἶδα (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regarding "No official track listing", see Chromatics Reveal New Dear Tommy Tracklist, Share New Song “Teacher”: Listen. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have since added it to the article. Οἶδα (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Agree with User:Sergecross73 above: "Coverage from Billboard, Pitchfork, Spin, NPR, NME, etc – this [proposed] album received dedicated coverage from mainstream reliable sources. It meets the WP:GNG." Whether it is an "album" is not is orthogonal to WP:GNG coverage. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 11:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the band. The sources are ok, but would not be out of place in the band article either. Meeting GNG doesn't mean that it necessarily has to be its own article. Geschichte (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep My first thought was that an unreleased album obviously shouldn't have a page (that's just silly). But it has more than enough coverage, as other people have pointed out. The article (and multiple reliable sources) also say that the band plans to release the album, it just doesn't have a release date yet. It does have a tracklist and a couple of released tracks (and did I mention heaps of coverage?). I think that makes a pretty strong argument for keeping it. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:32, 23 August 2021 (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.