Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fall Out Boy's fifth studio album
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fall Out Boy's fifth studio album[edit]
AfDs for this article:
- Fall Out Boy's fifth studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
No original research, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Will (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, too soon yet to contain any verifiable info, especially if the title of the album isn't even known yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete WP:OR doesn't really apply—the article's sourced from Billboard and MTV News. The crystal ballery currently outweighs media coverage at this point. Still, compared to most "such-and-so's forthcoming album" articles, this one is bearable. Precious Roy (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Precious Roy (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Not enough material to support an article at this point, and what's here is already covered in Fall Out Boy anyway. A duplicate article at Fall Out Boy's 5th Studio Album should also be included in this afd. PC78 (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've redirected the other article to this one as the title is proper and it actually has references. Precious Roy (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. There are two references that are arguably reliable. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Subject at this time is excessively inchoate for a verifiable article. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 03:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.