Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N.I.N.A. (2nd nomination)

Add links
From 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 redirect to Lisa_Lopes#N.I.N.A.. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

N.I.N.A.[edit]

AfDs for this article:
N.I.N.A. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was recently nominated, and came back as "no consensus". The only editor still arguing for keep has consented to a relisting. The earlier nomination was for a substantially larger article, but that article consisted primarily of unsupportable statements. My arguments against that version are at Talk:N.I.N.A.#Redirect discussion and that earlier version can be seen here. —Kww(talk) 20:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I'm seeking delete and redirect to Lisa Lopes#N.I.N.A. "Merging" is impossible, as all sourced information already exists at Lisa Lopes#N.I.N.A. Because all information already exists in the target, the deletion will cause no GFDL problems.—Kww(talk) 21:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom, essentially. I voted "keep" on the previous AfD but in hindsight, and given nominators excellent work laying out the case for at least a redirect on the article's talk page, my vote should have been for redirecting. The nominator has trimmed all non-sourced or speculative information from the article, which indeed leaves behind information already present at Lisa Lopes#N.I.N.A. A redirect is the clear solution, as a result. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As my previous vote stated, I still feel that, since it is an album that has sufficient reliable sources (regardless of the title confusion), it is worthy of having it's own article. SilverserenC 00:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect per nom, there's not enough here for an article and no need to duplicate the information in two locations. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect As above.Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable albums get their own pages. This one meets all requirements, getting coverage in MTV news [1] and elsewhere. And starting a new AFD just one day after the old one closed, is rather lame. You don't keep nominating something for deletion until you get your way. Dream Focus 05:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I consented to a relisting because you guys were going to try and redirect it otherwise. SilverserenC 05:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To KWW. There is no good faith in what was done. I checked the history of the article. After it closed as no consensus to delete, and thus should be kept, KWW replaces the article with a redirect anyway. [2] As I stated in your current Administration run [3], your previous statements have me convinced you don't care what consensus is, you just determined to have your own way and delete anything you don't think should exist. This relist should've never happened. Dream Focus 05:56, 15 April 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/N.I.N.A._(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138108375"