Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singular: Act I

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. Tone 22:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Singular: Act I

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article has been redirected and moved so many times with only youtube and iTunes references, that it is time for this to be discussed in a more public forum. Jax 0677 (talk) 14:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being released Friday, so this nomination is pointless the moment midnight ET happens that early morning. Here's one source. Here's another. But another question; it was redirected; why remove the redirect, only to immediately nom for deletion? It's out of process. Nate • (chatter) 17:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This user is refusing to give upcoming albums a WP:CHANCE. If the release date and track listing are confirmed, and the release date is less than a week away, then of course the article is going to be scant. This is something that @Jax 0677: can't seem to get through their head. There's no reason to delete/redirect it only to rebuild it once the album is released. That said, I did find a couple more sources and added them to the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As I mentioned before, the article kept getting moved and redirected over and over again. I therefore decided to have the discussion about whether to keep or delete the article once and for all. Redirecting with history is also a potential result of AFD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And as I said, as of 12:01am Friday morning, this becomes an example of WP:BURO as a confirmed album out for purchase that we're inexplicably trying to delete up to Monday morning. Unless it's delayed (and it won't be), this nom is a complete waste of resources. Once it gets to within seven days before, common sense should tell you that talk page discussion, rather than an out-of-date AfD, is the proper venue. Nate • (chatter) 20:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy the contents back to Draft~~ Jax 0677 Why was this recreated despite having a draft in existence? It should have been continued to be developed there until it reaches notability. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC) updated 17:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This should have been tagged with {{R with possibilities}} so that the entire article isn't re-created. Also note this version was created on 24 October 2018, a day after the previous article was moved to Draft. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Histmerge was done so striking the draft suggestion. Article has good chance of staying given that reviews should be available [1] as well as announcements from notable magazines / websites [2] [3] [4] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @AngusWOOF:, I initially started an article in article space, but once I was told to work in draft space, that is what I did for the most part. If I worked on the page in article space, it was tidying it up after someone made a page in article space. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Speedy delete per WP:A10. The sequence is as follows:

00:37, 23 October 2018‎ LOVI33 (+2,140) created Draft:Singular: Act 1 as an AfC submission
01:16, 23 October 2018‎ Shakiraeldorado (+646)‎ created Singular: Act 1Singular: Act 1 as an article at the correct title, it was eventually redirected due to the draft's existence
20:54, 24 October 2018‎ Jax 0677 (+43) created the redirect Singular: Act I, on which another editor started an article that should've been redirected just like the above

The draft already existed as a page for this particular topic so the other two pages should be speedy deleted per WP:A10 - "recently created article that duplicates an existing topic". If we're going to keep the article, Draft:Singular: Act 1 should be approved and moved into the mainspace as this page is the original article version for this particular album. Flooded with them hundreds 16:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - We can also do a {{histmerge}} as well. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Info: I have history-merged Draft:Singular: Act 1 to Singular: Act I. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I think this is notable enough to keep, the history has been merged so I see no reason to delete it. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:04, 12 November 2018 (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.