Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U2's twelfth 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   Keep; even though I don't like it. The respondents here obviously feel that this article passes the notwithstanding clause in WP:CRYSTALHAMMER. (If my own opinion mattered, I'd delete it; but who am I?)  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

U2&

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

Unnamed future album. Fails WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL Tavix (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.   — Cliff smith  talk  22:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Ledgreen.png|20px]] Keep - even though this article is a bit premature, it doesn't appear to be crystal ball-ery; it appears to have reliable sources. RockManQ (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete WP:HAMMER aside, there are a couple sources, but I don't think there's quite enough for a full page on the album yet. Any content can be moved to U2's page. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - no content should be moved to U2's page. That's a carefully tuned feature article that doesn't go into the details of upcoming new albums, even if said details are well-referenced. --Merbabu (talk) 03:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future album, early information about it should be in the artist's article only, not in a separate article about the unreleased album (per WP:MUSIC). If this is deleted, it should be summarized and moved to U2.  Cliff smith  talk  22:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's already summarised in the U2 article. If deleted, the remainder in the album article is too specific and detailed for the broad, high-level U2 article. --Merbabu (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete — While not subject to the WP:CRYSTALHAMMER, it is subject to WP:NOTNEWS, which is what this article seems to consist. MuZemike (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Falls under WP:CRYSTALHAMMER's notwithstanding clause; plenty of reputable third-party sources on this subject, and it has been the subject of news coverage only recently (I heard a radio story about the album just yesterday). WP:NOTNEWS applies mostly to news events such as car accidents and mundane speeches, not coverage of an upcoming entertainment release. I believe there is enough here for a viable article. 23skidoo (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - as a future album missing a release date, a title, and a tracklisting. U2 is sort of a bid deal, but it fails on all three criteria --T-rex 18:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Agreed, it falls under WP:CRYSTALHAMMER's notwithstanding clause:There are occasional exceptions to this law, as sometimes a future album will contain enough verifiable information for a decent article even if the title is not known. There is enough third-party sources on this article, and it isn't looking into a crystal ball, it has viable information on the recording process. Although the release date is vague (2009), it is still a release date. In regards to WP:NOTNEWS, it mentions: Articles should not be about events that have strictly passing significance and interest. The content in this article is not of passing interest, it is of continuing interest up until the album release date. BrianAll (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes, keep, as it falls under the notwithstanding clause in WP:CRYSTALHAMMER . Betaphor (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC) — Betaphor (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Marginal keep – I’ve voted to delete this article a few times (once or twice successfully). And, although I wouldn’t recommend creation of the the article had it not been created, now that it’s been done it appears to comprise verifiable info, rather than crystal-balling, such that it can be kept under WP:HAMMER. Further, consider that if it’s deleted, it will be re-created fairly quickly, probably by someone who never knew of its deletion. --Merbabu (talk) 00:15, 15 September 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.