Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oceania (album)
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. Though I'm going to AFG on the nomination. The oldafd tag from the previous AFD wasn't on the article's talk page (but the first AFD was in the article's recent history). Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oceania (album)
- Oceania (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:CRYSTAL, WP:HAMMER. It can be recreated when there's material. In the meantime, even a redirect doesn't really work because no one is going to search Wikipedia for "Oceania (album)". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – an AFD for this album was just closed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oceania (Smashing Pumpkins album) with a result of keep. The title of the article was moved after the discussion was opened. Fezmar9 (talk) 23:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - As Fezmar just said, this was just discussed, and it was decided to be kept. Sergecross73 msg me 02:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - For reasons noted above. It's a waste of wikimembers time and an insult to our collective intelligence to have the same issue brought up again after it had clearly been resolved. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the previous discussion was created under a different name for the article, it likely wasn't clear that it had been resolved already. Fezmar9 (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A note of that change was included in the previous discussion. In fact, it looks like you were the one who included the note. It was clear then, so I don't see what the problem is. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But how would the nominator have been aware of the previous discussion? Usually there's either a template placed on the talk page of the nominated article notifying editors of previous discussions, or when trying to open a new AFD, you're just linked to original discussion forcing you to rename it as the second nomination. Neither of those are applicable to this situation since Oceania (album) was never nominated for deletion, Oceania (Smashing Pumpkins album) was. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming good faith that the nominator here didn't know that the possible deletion of this article was already discussed, the fact that there exists a page on record to show that this discussion has taken place and been resolved should merit the closure of this deletion nomination immediately. The fact that we're going on and on about it here is only proving my point that this is a waste of time, and I am finished discussing this with you as I consider the matter to be rather moot. If you wish to discuss further then message me on my talk page as I will no longer continue this conversation here. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. While I can understand how someone could nominate it because no note was put on the discussion page, I can't understand why this hasn't been closed yet now that this all has been brought to light. (Unless it's just a matter of time.) Sergecross73 msg me 22:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming good faith that the nominator here didn't know that the possible deletion of this article was already discussed, the fact that there exists a page on record to show that this discussion has taken place and been resolved should merit the closure of this deletion nomination immediately. The fact that we're going on and on about it here is only proving my point that this is a waste of time, and I am finished discussing this with you as I consider the matter to be rather moot. If you wish to discuss further then message me on my talk page as I will no longer continue this conversation here. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But how would the nominator have been aware of the previous discussion? Usually there's either a template placed on the talk page of the nominated article notifying editors of previous discussions, or when trying to open a new AFD, you're just linked to original discussion forcing you to rename it as the second nomination. Neither of those are applicable to this situation since Oceania (album) was never nominated for deletion, Oceania (Smashing Pumpkins album) was. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A note of that change was included in the previous discussion. In fact, it looks like you were the one who included the note. It was clear then, so I don't see what the problem is. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the previous discussion was created under a different name for the article, it likely wasn't clear that it had been resolved already. Fezmar9 (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep and Speedy Close - assuming good faith for everyone involved so far, but this AfD is completely frivolous in light of the previous one. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:42, 10 May 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.