Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyranny (Julian Casablancas + The Voidz album)

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) --Writing Enthusiast ^☎ 20:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tyranny (Julian Casablancas + The Voidz album)

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

Seemingly a promotion for an album that hasn't been released yet, a side project for Casablancas on the musician's own label. There are a couple of very brief announcements online, based on a press release by Casablancas. I don't see any basis for an article yet. Sionk (talk) 09:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep coverage extends far beyond press releases/brief announcements, and includes the following three articles in RSs: [1] [2] [3] Also, meets TenPoundHammer's Law. Jinkinson talk to me 13:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Each of those three sources are dated the same day and quote the same blurb from a press release. The remainder of each article is generally about Voidz, which I suppose may be useful for the (poor) Voidz article. Sionk (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in WP:RS, per User:Sionk. May become notable in future, though. GoldenRing (talk) 04:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Album by a clearly notable artist that is released in two weeks time and has already received coverage from SPIN, Rolling Stone, Rolling Stone again, Pitchfork, NME, Billboard, and several others. It will certainly be reviewed by multiple major publications within weeks, so this discussion is really a waste of time. --Michig (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I mostly agree with what Michig said above. It will be reviewed by major publications and I daresay will be worked on further in the near future. If it is deleted now it will probably just be recreated in a short while by somebody. I believe it has enough notability to stand on its on for the moment, though. Ss 112 14:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig. Also the album appears to be satisfying WP:NALBUMS. It will be released (and reviewed by music publishings) tomorrow. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 15:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not really much more to say than what Michig said. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:56, 23 September 2014 (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.