Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metallica 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Metallica II

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The fact that this article can not be speedily deleted per CSD G3 is madness. It's a hoax, plain and simple, there's nothing that can be done to save it, yet an admin (Nyttend) has refused speedy deletion under the rationale that I can't fully prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that such an album will not be released. A search for the title gets not a single mention from google news. The band's website says nothing about a new album. A google search for the supposed James Hetfield quote that was in the original version of the article turns up nothing. The supposed track listing in the original version is just parodies of previous Metallica songs. A search for one of the songs that was originally listed, "Wherever I Roam Again" gets no hits. A search for the other supposed songs does turn up Metallica-related sites, but none of them anything about a new album. And all of this from a user who has a history of creating nonsense articles (I admit, I can't see his deleted contributions, but a quick look at his talk page is enough evidence). This page was proded, but I removed it and afded it in hopes of getting a speedy deletion, because I do not want to see this nonsense remain in the main space for five days. It just gives the vandal what he wants. -- Scorpion 0422  22:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 'SPEEDY Delete - Since when is "we can't prove it does not exist" justification for providing webspace to nonsense? --96.233.40.199 (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Since consensus began to support the current format of speedy criterion G3 (vandalism, including only those hoaxes that are blatantly obvious), and since consensus formed to have a how-to-deal-with-hoaxes page that says "Note that hoaxes are generally not speedy deletion candidates." Nyttend (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. While I fully agree with Nyttend's assessment (the mere fact one has to Google something is enough to pass WP:CSD, we're not talking about winning 60 gold medals at the 1774 Olympics here), there are no sources to be found about this supposed upcoming album. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 22:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As for the concern that this AfD "just gives the vandal what he wants," my reply is that since the article bears a prominently displayed deletion tag, it shouldn't be much of a concern. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 22:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete - Unsourced, entirely speculative, zero references on Google. X X X antiuser eh? 22:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, but slowly — this is not a hoax that falls under G3 (I can't tell that it's false simply by looking at it), and this is plainly not nonsense. That being said, I trust the nominator's assurances and research to say that it's a hoax, and there's plainly no reason to keep this.  Nyttend (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as article fails WP:CRYSTAL. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  23:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. Seems like a hoax to me as well ("Master of Marionettes"?). Now, even if that's not the case, I can find zero evidence of the album, tracklist, or release date in reliable sources; at the very least, this fails WP:GNG, WP:NALBUMS, and violates WP:CRYSTAL.  Gongshow  Talk 23:57, 25 January 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.