Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N.E.L.L.Y.


 * 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, verifiability is non-negotiable and despite that being the basis for the nomination no reliable sources have been provided to even show that this album is even actually being produced. This deletion does not prejudice against a verified article being written instead. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

N.E.L.L.Y.
Future album, no references, scant information. Prod removed without explanation. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 06:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Addendum: For what it's worth, I recently asked about this sort of article on the Village Pump and was pointed at WP:NOT, which states that "speculation (about an upcoming item) must be well documented". Zetawoof(&zeta;) 06:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:MUSIC states that individual albums by a notable artist are notable. Category:Upcoming albums seems to show that articles about upcoming albums, if they are from notable artists, merit inclusion. --Daniel Olsen 06:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Daniel Olsen. WP:MUSIC says Though this guideline is somewhat controversial, the general consensus on notability of albums is that if the band that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. It doesn't specifically refer to upcoming albums, but there's a strong precident set by Category:Upcoming albums. --Brad Beattie (talk) 06:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete While I agree with both of the above statements, neither is applicable when the speculation isn't reliably sourced. GassyGuy 07:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yeah, I see your point on that. If we could get some sourcing for this article (verify the content somehow), keeping the article would be good. Otherwise, I'll change my vote to delete. --Brad Beattie (talk) 07:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per GassyGuy. I've tried to track down a source or two for the speculation, but there's not much out there that I can find. Thus, it becomes unverifiable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I think that this article meets the criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Wikipediarul e s 2221 01:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In which way? Currently, this is a page of unsourced speculation. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If sources can be provided, and contents verified keep the article. If not, redirect to the artist, where the article can later be un-redirected if/when verifiable information from external, third party sources can be provided. -- saberwyn 03:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge per saberwyn. The album will be noteable, sure, but that's only half the battle 'round here. Unless it can be appropriately referenced, it starts turning into a crystal ball issue. Consequentially 15:44, 23 October 2006 (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.