Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'm Back Again

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.--Húsönd 05:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Back Again

I'm Back Again (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article is unsourced and probably unverifiable. --

• Neutral - If it had a reference, I'd say keep... Spawn Man 00:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Try to find a source to reference. I couldn't. --
    Donald Albury 00:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete Crystal ballism. Write the article once it's released. Shimeru 00:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Shimeru.
  top 01:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Nominator or anyone interested may want to put a single for this album,
  Mr. DJ (song), up for deletion as well. If this goes, then so must the song. As for "keep or delete", I think this is merely a prematurely made article that may become article-worthy in the future if this rumored album indeed gets released. Whether that means keep and wait or delete and wait, I don't know. —EdGl 01:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete An article consisting entirely of
  weasel words. -- IslaySolomon | talk 02:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of the Tweet single "Oops, Oh my" (mmm Timbaland r0x0r!) but this is worth of delete Missvain 03:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is too speculative. - Richardcavell 04:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete,
  e Ong _{(C | R)} 06:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete,
  SkierRMH 09:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete More crystal balling. Why do folk waste our time with these articles. scope_creep 15:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete poor sourcing and "
  Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" seems very apparent here.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete speculative lack of verification and speculative Mrbowtie 19:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the words "It has been speculated" come into
  crystal ball territory. Unreferenced, I googled it and found nothing about it.--John Lake 19:07, 16 November 2006 (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.