Now That's What I Call Music! 51 (UK series) – Endorse. I had to read the nomination statement twice to understand what was being said, but the consensus that the AFD result was proper and that further discussion should happen at a draft/the target's talk page is clear. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Now That's What I Call Music! 51 (UK series) (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) This article had redirected as a result of the AFD outcome, however the article is making back and forth to be remove redirect, but it was protected from editing. Now a review will check the entire Now! album discography as a result and it is likely to be passed WP:NALBUMS and explain MBisanz that how the article was redirected. 2600:6C4E:580:A:3D45:956F:8F4A:D67B (talk) 08:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Speedy close/Endorse WP:NALBUMS says in the first sentence: "all articles on albums, singles or other recordings should meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Since no significant coverage was shown in the IP's post, and the AfD closure itself isn't in question either... this doesn't meet WP:DRVPURPOSE. Please make a new version at Draft:Now That's What I Call Music! 51 (UK series) and submit for review. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Question for Jovanmilic97 or nom: It more or less sounds like this is a UK television series and the deleted article was for the companion discography, do I have that right? --Doug Mehus T·C 14:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Yep, it's a series of albums per my searches, not a TV series. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Thanks, that reassures me that my DRV !vote and rationale is correct. --Doug Mehus T·C 14:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse as I see a clear consensus to redirect and per Jovanmilic97 above, who also rightly notes DRV nominator could draftify (or userify) the article boldly. --Doug Mehus T·C 14:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC) an[reply] I remember buying the original US release. I loved that CD, it had all the hits of the day. Now I've learned that they're currently on volume 73. Seventy-three! I suddenly feel old. Thanks, Wikipedia. Anyway, endorse, there was clear consensus to redirect; it could not have been closed any other way. No prejudice against creating a new draft and submitting it through AFC. – Levivich 17:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. This is the wrong forum. To challenge the old redirect consensus, discuss at the redirect target talk page, Talk:Now That's What I Call Music! discography. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - the close isn't defective. If someone wants to write a draft that demonstrates notability, that'd make the old AfD inapplicable, and they could place that page at the target. In that case, forcing editors to go through AfC is just plain bully and would be completely intolerable (though if they wanted to, of course, bully for them). Wily D 09:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Now That's What I Call Music! 51 (UK series) – Endorse. I had to read the nomination statement twice to understand what was being said, but the consensus that the AFD result was proper and that further discussion should happen at a draft/the target's talk page is clear. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article had redirected as a result of the AFD outcome, however the article is making back and forth to be remove redirect, but it was protected from editing. Now a review will check the entire Now! album discography as a result and it is likely to be passed WP:NALBUMS and explain MBisanz that how the article was redirected. 2600:6C4E:580:A:3D45:956F:8F4A:D67B (talk) 08:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close/Endorse WP:NALBUMS says in the first sentence: "all articles on albums, singles or other recordings should meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Since no significant coverage was shown in the IP's post, and the AfD closure itself isn't in question either... this doesn't meet WP:DRVPURPOSE. Please make a new version at Draft:Now That's What I Call Music! 51 (UK series) and submit for review. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question for Jovanmilic97 or nom: It more or less sounds like this is a UK television series and the deleted article was for the companion discography, do I have that right? --Doug Mehus T·C 14:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's a series of albums per my searches, not a TV series. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that reassures me that my DRV !vote and rationale is correct. --Doug Mehus T·C 14:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as I see a clear consensus to redirect and per Jovanmilic97 above, who also rightly notes DRV nominator could draftify (or userify) the article boldly. --Doug Mehus T·C 14:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC) an[reply]
I remember buying the original US release. I loved that CD, it had all the hits of the day. Now I've learned that they're currently on volume 73. Seventy-three! I suddenly feel old. Thanks, Wikipedia. Anyway, endorse, there was clear consensus to redirect; it could not have been closed any other way. No prejudice against creating a new draft and submitting it through AFC. – Levivich 17:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This is the wrong forum. To challenge the old redirect consensus, discuss at the redirect target talk page, Talk:Now That's What I Call Music! discography. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - the close isn't defective. If someone wants to write a draft that demonstrates notability, that'd make the old AfD inapplicable, and they could place that page at the target. In that case, forcing editors to go through AfC is just plain bully and would be completely intolerable (though if they wanted to, of course, bully for them). Wily D 09:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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