Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Have This Dream

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 of the debate was no consensus. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I_Have_This_Dream

Ok - this article survived an afd last year when it seemed imminent, but is now faintly embarrasing - personally i don't think it's going to happen at all, if and when it does, we can write an article about it Petesmiles 11:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Gu 12:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is a good example of why WP should not be a crystal ball. Mangojuice 12:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Mangojuice says. I'd say nothing should be included until a decent interval has passed after it has happened, to avoid this kind of nonsense. Just zis Guy you know? 12:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree this is embarrassing, to express it faintly, not to Wikipedia but to Wacko Jacko. Assuming Associated Press is a reliable source, the immanent appearance of the CD single was announced several times. The article simply describes what was actually reported, rather than (implicitly) assuming the accuracy of the "prophecies" reported upon, just like Great Disappointment reports on the embarrassing failure of a prophecy. The article itself does not suggest anything specific is going to happen: my crystal ball detector gives a negative. Lambiam ^Talk 12:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily verifiable. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, yes, WP:NOT crystalball, but even vaporware (or the musical equivilent) can be notable if enough press is churned out about it. I equate this to The Phantom (game system).--Isotope23 17:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and arguably has enough relevance for own article.--Cini 17:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the same reasons stated above by Mangojuice. --Charles 17:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Isotope and Cini. JoshuaZ 17:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An object lesson in why crystal ball articles need to be deleted. -- GWO
Delete. It failed several times to prove its notability by getting released. It always gets delayed and we can't continue to maintain an article of a non-existing single till eternity. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 15:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Encyclopedias don't predict the future. -- notyouravgjoe 20:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT.In1984 00:46, 30 April 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.