Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloodhound Gang'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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bloodhound Gang's fifth studio album

Bloodhound Gang's fifth studio album (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested prod. No content other than rumours, speculation and apparent original research; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Closedmouth (talk) 12:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. An article about a future album should only be created after its announcement, at whcih point it's "almost certain to take place". The fact that they've released new songs is already noted on the band page, and the conclusion that they're working on a new album is "new synthesis" of existing information (original research). Nothing here to salvage, so delete TheBilly (talk) 12:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:CBALL. Redfarmer (talk) 12:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, per WP:CRYSTAL. Malinaccier (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep if you ask me some of the people at Wikipedia should get a life. I was merely creating a page I THOUGHT was relevant and it clearly is. They are almost certain to release an album in the future, even the information saying it would be was ALREADY on the the Bloodhound Gang page, which some of my distinguished peers had already written. So think what you want but this page is saving a similar page being created in the future. Bhoy Wonder (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Delete per precedent Will (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a crystal ball. Also, no sources.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 04:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete It does not meet the current standards, to keep merely to save recreating in the future is no argument.OneHappyHusky (talk) 07:54, 5 January 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.