Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progressed (EP)

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 keep. Sprinting faster (talk) 09:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Progressed (EP)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Proposing a 'redirect of this article to Progress (Take That album). This EP is a re-release of the album with extra tracks. Referred to as a repackage by the OCC here and is charting as such. Mister sparky (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP- Although it is being treated by OCC as a repackage it was treated by the IRMA here, critics and reviews as a stand alone EP here. It should be kept as it holds a lot of information and thus should be treated in the same way as Lady Gaga's Fame Monster EP which also consisted of 8 new tracks here. That alone provides a precedent for it to remain as an article. Yids2010 (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - It's being marketed as a new release. That's why they put the 8 new tracks on the first disc, not the last (like most re-releases), because it signifies a standalone album.--z33k (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - As mentioned above and shown in the examples. It was marketed as a new release and referred to by Take That themselves as the brand new albumhere and so should remain. Virus101 (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I agree, it was promoted as a new album so it is a new album. It's not Progress with extra songs but Progressed with Progress attached. Progressed should be kept on a separate page. (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC + 1)

KEEP - What everyone else has said ^^. Gaga's The Fame Monster was an EP of The Fame, that has it's own article, can't have double standards. It is the same concept as Progress and Progressed. Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 19:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the comparisons to the fame monster are irrelevant, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Mister sparky (talk) 23:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the EP has just debuted in Denmark shown here in hung medien under the title of Progressed again emphasising the fact that it is a stand alone collection. Yids2010 (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the OCC still clasifies it as a re-entry. so yes agreed in some countries it is classed as a new album, but in some it is not. so yes agreed it can stay. but any occ positions cannot be added to it. Mister sparky (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

or as with the fame monster article, a note is given stated they charted in conjunction with each other. Mister sparky (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2011 (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.