Deletion of Music Is the Weapon (2nd nomination)

Comment: I've got this in my watchlist: there's a bit of vandalism etc., but not much. For notability, rather than just looking at the four sources mentioned in the last AfD, just search for it in Google: this album has generated a lot of ongoing speculation in reliable music news sources (i.e. many articles just about the album, not just passing mentions), passing GNG, and I would agree with {{u|Sergecross73}} from the last AfD that it's comparable to ' ''Chinese Democracy'' example (and note that the  quote mentioned above is prefixed by "generally", as well as the example I mentioned for high profile unreleased albums – the purpose of this guideline seems to be for cases where fans of a minor band start an article when there's nothing to say yet – the expansive coverage in this case makes me think it doesn't apply). The article is already beyond a stub, so ' "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography" is passed too. &#8209;&#8209
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:FUTUREALBUMS||WP:FUTUREALBUMS||WP:NALBUMS)

Comment: Per my argument in the last AFD just a couple months ago. Entire articles dedicated to the subject by extremely high level sources like Billboard (magazine)|Billboard and MTV are enough to pass the . Much of the rest of the nomination is irrelevant - we don’t delete articles just because of the hypothetical concern of fake release dates (that’s something that happens in virtually every article about a commercial product, and it’s an invalid  argument.) Additionally, it’s already expanded beyond a stub, so that concern isn’t relevant either
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOTCLEANUP)

Comment: definitely passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MUSIC)