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. Eluchil404 04:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time and Time Again (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Fails notability criteria and offers no more information than the main article, essentially making it a redundant content fork. Seraphim ^Whipp 11:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC) Seraphim ^Whipp 11:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - If all notable information about the single "Time and Time Again" is located on the lovehatetragedy article, there is no need for the "Time and Time Again" article to exist to duplicate the information. Users will, however, search for the single without knowing the name of the album, therefore Time and Time Again should redirect to lovehatetragedy. Neelix 13:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Completely agree, redirect. Seraphim ^Whipp 08:54, 11 September 2007 (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.