Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled Second Album (2nd nomination)


 * 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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Untitled Second Album
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unreleased future album, crystal ballery. Prod denied by author. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note This article is unrelated to the prior "Untitled Second Album" article, other than by its rather non-specific title. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 20:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said last time, Delete and then redirect to The Telescopes, the 2004 re-release of their second album was given this name, unless numerous bands have done the gag, in which case a dab page should be created. Might stop crystal balling. Hiding T 22:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How can you have a redirect if you've deleted the page????????   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 23:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is where the important words "and then" come into their own. &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe you are under the impression that this "Untitled Second Album" is the same as the first article of that name. This is a new article, about a completely different band, so no redirect is appropriate.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. I have reviewed all teh facts at hand and taken them into account when making my opinion known. The reason the redirect is appropriate is because as far as I can see The Telescopes are the only band who have actually released an album of this specific name. For me, tidying it up as a redirect makes as much sense as salting it, and perhaps makes it a little more educational. Hiding T 15:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK, I see your point. However, I may have made my own point in my confusion: this article title is simply TOO generic! WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * delete and salt too generic a name to redirect (IMHO) unless you fancy making a disambig - that's another option. But the article itself is junk  Chzz  ►  23:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt, STOP.......Hammer time.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 23:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete quite strongly, per WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 02:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, then redirect The current article violates WP:CRYSTAL and there is no salvageable content in the history. - Mgm|(talk) 09:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. GT5162 (我的对话页) 16:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect per Hiding. — BQZip01 —  talk 17:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete — No information or reliable sources. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:24, 19 April 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.