Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glasvegas studio album II


 * 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. JForget 23:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Glasvegas studio album II

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is the ultimate, classic candidate for the WP:HAMMER - no title, no tracklist, no definite release date, no sources, nothing. Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:CRYSTAL. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a textbook case of WP:HAMMER and WP:NALBUMS. I am expecting snow in the forecast. talking  birds  22:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Wp:CRYSTAL and Wp:HAMMER - honestly, there's almost literally nothing on there. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) | (talk to me) | (What I've done)  23:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Smash with WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop! Hammer time! The Weak Willed 01:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was going to go with "keep" when one of the sources actually confirmed the 3 tracks listed, but after reading this silly piece of fancruft, I'll say merge whatever can be saved into Glasvegas. It certainly fails WP:NALBUMS, but it does not fail WP:CRYSTAL, also, 74,100 Google hits kind of yell "NOTABLE!", but still, there is not enough information to justify having a separate article yet. --> RUL3R *flaming 04:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It does fails WP:CRYSTAL because the article says that it is planned for release in early 2010. The number of Google hits have nothing to do with WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 04:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To quote our source:
 * Glasvegas frontman James Allan has revealed that the band are set to record their second album in Los Angeles this winter.
 * "Are set" certainly sounds like fact, rather than "are planning" which would sound like probability. Anyway, is it such a problem to add a sourced 3-sentence paragraph to the Glasvegas article? Jeez... Also, per WP:NALBUMS:
 * ''For example, a future album whose article is titled "(Artist)'s Next Album" and consists solely of blog or fan forum speculation about possible titles, or songs that might be on the album, is a WP:CRYSTAL violation and should be discussed only in the artist's article, and even then only if there is some verifiable information about it. (See also TenPoundHammer's Law.)
 * And here we have enough WP:V/WP:RS to have a partial track list and a confirmation that production starts this winter. That should make it for a small mention in the Glasvegas article. --> RUL3R *flaming 04:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - this has expanded since the version I nominated, but the words "planned for release in early 2010" were enough to show that it would not meet WP:NALBUMS requirement for "confirmed release dates in the near future". JohnCD (talk) 09:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. An album that the band plan to record after their planned move to the United States and after they have built the studio that they're planning to build - nowhere near articleworthy at present, and the "confirmed tracks" are nothing of the sort - just more plans.--Michig (talk) 09:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * STOP!!.......Hammer time. Esradekan (talk) 13:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:HAMMER. No need to make this now. The band is still promoting their debut album. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 14:07, 9 August 2009 (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.