Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Didn't Mean to Haunt You (2nd nomination)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  01:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I Didn't Mean to Haunt You
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Was previously soft deleted after an AfD I started with just one other participant. Has been recreated with the same sources which were present before, and I'm still not convinced. Check the previous AfD for my full reasoning. Redirect to Quadeca (which it should've been in the first place but that's my mistake for forgetting to write that before). QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 01:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: As this article is not eligible for Soft Deletion, there will have to be much more support for deletion for this discussion to close as a Delete. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 01:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think that the sources present in the article (i.e. Spill, Paper Magazine, The Fader, and yes, Fantano) do allow the album to fulfill the WP:GNG. I'll admit, it does barely fulfill the requirements, but barely is still enough! It is a little funny, we both have uncovered the same sources and yet have come to different conclusions. I also have found one source here, a university-affiliated paper (which I think could be arguably an RS). I will admit to that being a stretch, but even without that, I believe the album is just notable enough. ULPS (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG based on sources already present in the existing article. Multiple bylined reviews, lots of additional background across multiple sources. &mdash;siro&chi;o 04:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Varied sources ranging from sources wear their job is just cover any album to articles about should be enough to qualify it for WP:GNG PLUNGERwasHere (talk) 02:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * replied to wrong thing sorry I'm new PLUNGERwasHere (talk) 02:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article needs a bit of revising as it isn't perfectly up to standards with other album articles, but I believe it meets WP:GNG based on the sources. SpeedrunnerInTraining (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.