Deletion of Korn's ninth studio album (3rd nomination)

Comment: No, it does not fail .  So far, the production of the album is well-documented, and we don't predict anything the sources don't. We're perfectly in-line with 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: Also, as a note,  generally supports keeping this article: "'''''In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia.''' Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are '''in general''' not notable; '''however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources.'''''" That's saying, in other words, unreleased albums with bad sourcing are generally not notable. It also says, for that matter, that generally if the artist is notable, then so is the album; and also that the album may still be notable, '''despite being unreleased''', if it's got good sourcing. This album is both by an artist considered widely notable, and has sufficient independent sourcing to imply its notability. Therefore, this article is simply supported by the two guidelines you cited
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NALBUMS)

Comment: Citing  is pretty irrelevant, isn't it? It's not an actual policy, so citing it for the deletion is completely invalid; especially in this case. Production for this album has started, the headman already has conceived and publicly explained what he plans to do lyrically, they've evidently already finished two or three songs, while having potentially 15 or 16 rough concepts for songs. The fact that a title hasn't been announced, therefore, is irrelevant; the article should stay solely on the content it '''does''' have, not because of the content it doesn't
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:TenPoundHammer's Law (WP:HAMMER)

Comment: seems to meet exception 1 of  "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: per  etc etc etc Not enough info yet. Wait a bit longer
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:TenPoundHammer's Law (WP:HAMMER)

Comment: The editors arguing for delete have failed to take the time to actually read  and .  Sadly, they appear not even to have read as far as the third sentence of either page.  For the policy, we'll note "It ''is'' appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced."  That's what this article does
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:TenPoundHammer's Law (WP:HAMMER||WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: Some reliable sources, some of them aren't. No track list, no release date. Fails  and  (again
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:TenPoundHammer's Law (WP:HAMMER||WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: Article is well-sourced, and is validly potentially start- or C-class. As I stated in my above comment, album is moving along nicely; they have 15 or 16 rough songs, with 2 or 3 finished songs; the lyrical themes have already been explained (and sourced); a rough release date has been given. To top it all, the band has announced its method for recording. It's very well-sourced, well-documented, and well-organized. The sourcing clearly prevents it from violating : the article simply states what its sources do, it never strays from that, so Wikipedia is not predicting the future, although the sources might be. However, I believe  states that ''Wikipedia'' is not a crystal ball; while it says nothing about sources. As for , again, the information available regarding the production and the themes and the release of this album completely render  irrelevant; whether or not the album has a title does not directly limit or enhance content, and should therefore not restrict content allowed here. That's all. Keep; it's well-sourced, and it's not violating anything
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:HAMMER)