Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophmore 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 per WP:CRYSTAL. Winter's come early - it seems to be

Sophmore Album

Sophmore Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Unreferenced. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Subject mentioned in article is
  chatter) 20:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete
  Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - the article is pure speculation (stated in the article). Guest9999 (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as pure speculation/
  WP:CRYSTAL per nom. No sources exist yet on the album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - pretty close to a speedy, really, given the lack of context (which of the many Palmers are we talking about here?). Creator of the article also needs to learn how to spell sophomore. Grutness...wha? 00:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete seems like a place-holder article. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 00:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Aside from the subject being unclear (definitely isn't
  WP:CRYSTAL all the way. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 00:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete: If the article is so unclear that you can't even tell what it is about (like this is) then surely it has to be speedyable as either "db-nonsense" or "db-context"? --DanielRigal (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy. Per TenPoundHammer. Basketball110 (talk · contribs · count) 00:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:CRYSTAL is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete as no-context crystalballism. I don't even know who the article is talking about. ... discospinster _talk 01:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Grutness. Risker (talk) 04:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.  
  talk  04:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Got the article subject from reading it; it's
  chatter) 06:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, I have no idea who "Palmer" is, but there is no musician in the world so famous that this unsourced
  crystal ball article would be worth keeping. --Stormie (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Haven't a clue who this guy is... RC-0722 ^247.5/1 14:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. And if the album comes out, it's will be Palmer's "sophomore" album. Unless you expect Palmer to stop after his fourth ("senior") album, maybe it's best not to make an analogy like that. Mandsford (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per above - enough said! --
  s 23:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:28, 20 April 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.