Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychostick's second studio 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Psychostick's second studio album
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article appears to violate WP:CRYSTAL in that it discusses an album that is untitled and unfunded. This album does not appear to meet the guidelines for notability. Recommend delete and merge what content exists into Psychostick. Clubjuggle T / C  03:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails notability per WP:HAMMER, WP:CRYSTAL & WP:MUSIC. No title, no track listing. No article.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 04:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, not a crystal ball. J I P  | Talk 04:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:HAMMER. No title, no track listing, no cover art. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 04:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete a case of WP:CRYSTAL and and meets deletion criterion per Hammer's Law. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 05:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --  Darth Mike   ( Talk  • Contribs ) 09:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The article fails WP:CBALL. Also no WP:V, and reliable sources reporting it. Also the article seems to be own research, see WP:NOR. -- 'Kanonkas' : Talk  13:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: I find it strange that you all cite WP:HAMMER, dispite the fact that it is not offical guidelines for deletion...I am fine with a merge to Psychostick until we have enough info to make it work. Green  Runner  0  20:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: I agree with Green  Runner  0 .--FallenWings47 (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment You are correct that WP:HAMMER is not a policy document in and of itself, but it is an interpretation of policy that many agree with. As a matter of convenience, it's more convenient to link to WP:HAMMER than to say "delete because the content is speculative, the article constitutes original research and too little is known about the subject to write a meaningful article." In other words, WP:HAMMER is a convenient shortcut, and the arguments cited within it are the argument for deletion. --Clubjuggle T/ C 22:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. Green  Runner  0  02:24, 4 August 2008 (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.