Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Year Zero Part 2


 * 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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 07:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Year Zero Part 2

 * – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete - This article should be deleted, as it is entirely speculative. The name of the article has not even been confirmed, let alone any further information warranting a full article.HorseloverFat 08:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. MER-C 09:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Way too speculative for an encyclopedia.–m.f (t • c) 10:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless sourced to the standards of Year Zero (album), if at all possible at this point. The current article is merely a collection of indiscriminate links to unverified viral marketing sites. --Dhartung | Talk 12:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Too much speculation and nearly no facts. Goldenglove 17:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I've included all sources of the album's eventual existence as well as a fair description in that first paragraph. I've also made the infobox more substantial. I think as the mentions of the album and other things concerning the album accumulate this could be a decent article, it shouldn't be too long before Trent talks briefly about his vision of Y0 Part 2 in interviews seeing as how Part 1 is almost out and Part 2's gonna come around sometime next year. See: Talk:Year Zero Part 2 for extra information and details and such. R-Tiztik 21:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Well, I thought it was kind of a ridiculous page at first as well. But there are two sources for the information (that I can find): Blabbermouth (" 'Year Zero' is reportedly the first of two concept albums, the second of which Reznor hopes to finish next year.") and Kerrang! ("with part two scheduled for next year"). These two sources have me leaning towards keeping the article. Both sources are reasonably accredited sources, I mean both Blabbermouth and Kerrang have their own articles on Wikipedia, so they're somewhat reputable and/or noteworthy.  The page does, however, need to be cleaned up and possibly renamed/moved if we were to keep it.Drewcifer3000 02:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Move to Untitled seventh Nine Inch Nails album; if not, 'keep per above Will 02:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Way too little information to create a page.  The Kerrang! interview is the only actual source, with Blabbermouth echoing it using the "reportedly" weasel-word.  One source about a possible album is not enough to justify an article.  The album should have a name, or a release date, or confirmation on the official website—something that's concrete—before starting an article on it. -- rynne 17:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge info back into the Year Zero (album) article. The information is good, but doesn't deserve an article in its own right.&mdash;Perceval 17:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per R-Tiztik The System 3000 21:49, 6 April 2007 (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.