Template:Kelly Clarkson singles – Undeleted because the reason for deletion no longer applies. – Sandstein 06:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Kelly Clarkson singles (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) For background, this template was deleted per a TfD discussion in 2009, then re-created several times and speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G4 as a re-creation of a page deleted due to a deletion discussion. The last time, I speedily deleted the template myself, redirected it to Template:Kelly Clarkson, and protected the redirect. Recently User:Woofygoodbird asked me to prepare a DRV for this template. Woofygoodbird's reason for requesting the template to be restored is as follows: Now that there are already 26 songs spanning from five albums are cluttering the main Kelly Clarkson template, making it less user-friendly, I think having a separate template for her singles would be deemed more appropriate to make it cleaner and easier for someone to navigate all the singles articles. I also don't think that it's redundant now, given that she has released enough singles to create a separate template. It's quite redundant before, but now I don't think it is. I personally am neutral on this question, so please consider Woofygoodbird to be the requester here. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] Give the deletion nom was originally "Clarkson does not have enough singles for a singles template to be necessary" and many responses were per nom, this sounds like a quite reasonable consensus can change argument and it would appear that G4 is probably now invalid relative to that as it's changed in a substantive way since the original discussion, so looks like a restore and let it be re-TFD'd if someone wants to. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 06:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] 62.254's argument seems sensible to me as well. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 23:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] Overturn - Original deletion rationale no longer valid. Rlendog (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] Unprotect. It is clear that the original rational for deletion no longer applies with as much force and so G4 is no longer valid. That covers unprotection, but it is not clear to me whether the old history would be a useful starting place or not, since to be useful the template would need to have an up-to-date listing of her singles not whatever was deleted in the past. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Template:Kelly Clarkson singles – Undeleted because the reason for deletion no longer applies. – Sandstein 06:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

For background, this template was deleted per a TfD discussion in 2009, then re-created several times and speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G4 as a re-creation of a page deleted due to a deletion discussion. The last time, I speedily deleted the template myself, redirected it to Template:Kelly Clarkson, and protected the redirect.

Recently User:Woofygoodbird asked me to prepare a DRV for this template. Woofygoodbird's reason for requesting the template to be restored is as follows:

Now that there are already 26 songs spanning from five albums are cluttering the main Kelly Clarkson template, making it less user-friendly, I think having a separate template for her singles would be deemed more appropriate to make it cleaner and easier for someone to navigate all the singles articles. I also don't think that it's redundant now, given that she has released enough singles to create a separate template. It's quite redundant before, but now I don't think it is.

I personally am neutral on this question, so please consider Woofygoodbird to be the requester here. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Give the deletion nom was originally "Clarkson does not have enough singles for a singles template to be necessary" and many responses were per nom, this sounds like a quite reasonable consensus can change argument and it would appear that G4 is probably now invalid relative to that as it's changed in a substantive way since the original discussion, so looks like a restore and let it be re-TFD'd if someone wants to. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 06:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
62.254's argument seems sensible to me as well. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 23:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Original deletion rationale no longer valid. Rlendog (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotect. It is clear that the original rational for deletion no longer applies with as much force and so G4 is no longer valid. That covers unprotection, but it is not clear to me whether the old history would be a useful starting place or not, since to be useful the template would need to have an up-to-date listing of her singles not whatever was deleted in the past. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.