Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U2's 16th 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 delete. WjBscribe 11:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] U2's 16th album

U2's 16th album (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The article is very unencyclopedic because it contains nothing but hearsay and rumors about the upcoming album, and features very little "confirmed" information. Crashintome4196 05:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Do you mean "not encyclopedic?"... I think so. I still say Keep because by reading the sources, there is definitely going to be a 16th album. True, there is a lot of hearsay, which should be deleted, but what would remain is encyclopedic. Sancho (Review me) 06:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

*Very very weak keep witha big cull of fluff. I agree with Crashintome4196's sentiment but reluctantly suggest keep. I'd much prefer an encyclopedia to report on things that have actually happened, but someone else will no doubt re-create it and it serves as a good place to dumb all the speculative fluff that gets dumped into the high quality U2 article. But, yes - unsourced gossip should be strictly culled from this article. Merbabu 07:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Further comment - the article's name is a problem. 16th album? Who names an article like that? And it's arguably not their 16th anyway - certainly not the 16th studio album which is what counts.Merbabu 07:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Weak delete - I've changed my mind. Now slightly on the side of delete. I suggest when a name is confirmed would be a good date to re-create an article. What do people think? And how do we stop it being recreated? Merbabu 02:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:Crystal Ball. The references are weak. This will get recreated, and if/when the album has a title and some concrete references. But having possible tracks/producer is too much speculation for an encyclopedia. the_undertow ^talk 07:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - good points - a few more convincing comments, and I could change to 'delete'. Merbabu 07:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the name is a concern, and implies that we could create U2's 17th album. I understand that editors are taking the position that there is definitely going to be a 16th album, but is there any guarantee? the_undertow ^talk 07:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - the difference here is that we know for a fact that U2 are spending a lot of time in the studio, preparing possible material for a new album, whereas we have absolutely no indication that there will be another album after this one. MelicansMatkin 20:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. It's all speculation; indeed, the last quoted comment from The Edge suggests they're not even thinking in terms of an album yet, they just have a few songs knocking about. --kingboyk 08:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. It is undoubtable that the band will release another album, and that at some point in the future this page would have to be recreated. I would also like to point out to other articles that have had similar issues of being created before much was known - notably this one. Confirmed facts will replace theory quickly as more is revealed. MelicansMatkin 16:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

comment I'm not a fan of leaving X because Y stayed. Besides, wouldn't you agree that the Harry Potter article is well-sourced? the_undertow ^talk 21:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The Harry Potter page is now, but at the time that it was requested for deletion, it wasn't. MelicansMatkin 04:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are we discussing Harry Potter? Precedence is almost always the silliest of justifications for anything on wikipedia.Merbabu 04:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I generally believe that we should not create articles until such time as the album has a name and there are some verifiable facts to include within it. The Harry Potter book has a name and a release date and various other facts for inclusion in an article. As yet, this doesn't.Capitalistroadster 01:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete agree with Capitalistroadster--VS ^talk 10:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Appears to be speculative, no strong sources. I say Delete. Sweboi 21:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep WTF? the article is very well referenced and at last informative. --Ciao 90 00:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It is well referenced in terms of quantity, but not quality. it is largely based on gossipy fansites. I've made the comment on the article talk page that references to such sites should be removed. How exactly is it informative? There is barely anything concrete or encyclopedic there. Merbabu 00:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Impatience. Write the article in Notepad and then create the article when the album's released. - Dudesleeper · Talk 21:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need to wait until the album is released, we just need to wait until we have a decent amount of varified information. And also an album title would be nice too. –Crashintome4196 04:48, 10 May 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.