Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call Music! 71 (U.K. series)


 * 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   delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 04:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Now That's What I Call Music! 71 (U.K. series)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

While it is a near certainty to be released, this article should still be deleted per WP:CRYSTAL without any verifiable sources Wolfer68 (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Leave it - what's wrong woth it existing, it will be an album, so why delete it when we're just going to recreate it in a few months...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.37.127 (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Eventually the article will be needed, but we need to wait until there is an official source. WP:CRYSTAL.  Plasticup  T / C  18:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Now That's What I Call Music until at the very least a track listing is avaliable, althought the only thing to merge is the likely release date. If it does get merged the main article page will also have to be updated to include Number 70. Dpmuk (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per Dpmuk - exactly right. The release date is the only thing preventing this from being a redir commentCastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 18:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's probably worth noting that the release date isn't sourced and I can't find anywhere else listing it, so I would presume that it's fabricated. BillyH 12:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - future albums without a tracklisting should be deleted --T-rex 20:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep-just put a lock on this page for gods sake, that way encyclopedic info can be added when they come out, release date, cover art etc. By locking it anonymus users cannot spam the page

Besides the USA Now 29 is allowed to stand, and that hasn't got much on it, so theirs should get deleted if ours goes under the axe ICryOverSpiltMilk (talk) 12:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Now 29 is allowed to stand because there is no AfD for it. This debate is for NOW! 71 (UK) not NOW! 29 (US). Also Now 29 has a confirmed release date posted on its offical website and is sourced on the article; no such confirmation exists for Now 71.
 * Good point, I'm nominating it for deletion --T-rex 23:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unsourced spam magnet etcetera. And for those who ask, the problem with allowing it to stand is simple. If Now! 71 is allowed to stand on the grounds that it will "almost certainly" be released, then why shouldn't somebody then create (and spam) Now! 72, which in all likelihood will also exist? And then Now! 73? And then Now! 74? And then Now! 100? And so on? The line clearly has to be drawn somewhere, and the only logical place for that line is with the current release. I've tried to have this series protected before (back around the time of Now! 67), and their response was to send it to AfD. It's clear that the only way to deal with these is to shoot on sight and recreate once some sourced information exists; and no sourced information is ever available beyond the latest edition. Kinitawowi (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2008 (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.