Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/^v^w^v^ (Car Bomb 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   delete. Although Boing! said Zebedee's redirect option could have been used, JamesBWatson and Armbrust appropriately show the lack of any sources verifying the album's (future) existence.   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  08:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

^v^w^v^ (Car Bomb album)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

As per WP:BALL. Article is largely conjectural and constitutes WP:OR Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 09:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * dude it's THE INTERNET. This is a well crafted page that follows all your stupid little wiki-prude-ia guidelines to a T and this album page will eventually become more developed and less conjectural as time goes on and more details are unfolded. There is little to no information on this upcoming album across the entire internet so i thought creating this now would give Car Bomb fans a place to come together and know where the band was really at in the recording process.

I see all your super-awesome hall-monitor badges dude but tuck your tail on this one and leave this article alone. I'm really sick and tired of posting WELL CRAFTED articles to only be shut down for an entirely fabricated and egotistical reason. Wikipedia has oodles and oodles of conjectural articles that don't even have correct spelling OR properly cited references yet they still remain. This is a GOOD article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wewillfindartagain (talk • contribs) 10:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Try to limit the comments to arguments as to why the article should remain. Ad-hominems rarely sway consensus in these debates. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 10:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "There is little to no information on this upcoming album across the entire internet" suggests that there is likely to be a lack of notability. "Creating this now would give Car Bomb fans a place to come together and know where the band was really at in the recording process" indicates that your purpose is publicising or promoting the album. Both of these are clear indications that the article does not satisfy Wikipedia's "stupid little wiki-prude-ia guidelines", so, contrary to your evident intention, these are arguments for deleting the article, not for keeping it. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Car Bomb (band). Pure conjecture and speculation. Redirect to the band's article until something verifiable from reliable sources emerges. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for meeting in the middle with me. I apologize for my free talk and excessive argumentation, i just finished reading the majority of the Wikpedia is not pages and now can understand a lot better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wewillfindartagain (talk • contribs) 11:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment if you want a redirect, than it should be at ^v^w^v^. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  16:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Does a source exist for the album name? I can't find anything on it outside of wikipedia. Yoenit (talk) 11:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I too have searched, and not found anything anywhere about this, apart from Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as there are no reliable sources about this album and it is a very unlikely search term. TenPoundHammer's Law can be aplied too, as there is no information on tracklist and release date and no source confirms the title of the album.  Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  13:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete The article is completely unsourced. The two so-called "references" are links to YouTube videos which don't, as far as I can see, mention this album, let alone confirm any of the statements in the article. Even the author of the article refers to some of the information given as "purported", and goes on to refer to things which "could" be the case, and describes his/her own statements as a "hypothesis". In short, by the author's own admission the article is largely unsubstantiated speculation. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.