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. Cirt (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Rehab[edit]

The Rehab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable unreleased album with little or no substantial media coverage. What little is there is wholly unsourced. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 16:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • If you bothered to read the article you'd have noticed where to get sources. Using that as a reason to delete when a website is explicitly mentioned is just bad practice. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you had bothered to read my nomination, you'd've noticed I only mentioned the lack of sources. My reason for deletion is that it fails WP:MUSIC#Albums, not WP:V.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 16:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep The article may be poorly written and badly sourced but its mentioned on MTV and some other sites. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete On reflection the info would be better off on Young Bucks page, no point in separate article atleast until its released. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep The article may be poorly written and badly sourced but its mentioned on MTV and some other sites. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC) - That was added by TopGearFreaks, must be editing clash. Still support deleting it. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Delete and keep?? :-) MuZemike (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and Fast. Pfffft. Why keep a 4-sentence article? It has next to no information. If the artist's fans want to re-write it once it comes out, they're welcome to. TopGearFreak ^Talk 16:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as crystalballery. MuZemike (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "[...] that the album will be released [...]" (citation from the article, gfdl, editor see history) ---> WP:CRYSTAL --> delete abf /talk to me/ 17:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Albums aren't automatically non-notable when they're not yet released. You just need more information than a name, release date and title track. In this case the most crucial extra info is still speculation and a tracklist isn't even included. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. Until the album's been the subject of considerable coverage in the media or there's more information than can comfortably fit in a couple of sentences, it should reside in the artist's article. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--Crystal ball and all, plus a glaring lack of content. Drmies (talk) 23:32, 26 November 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.