Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Court of Miracles

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Court of Miracles

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A popular Disney song that doesn't appear to have coverage. Coin945 (talk) 06:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yet another unnecessary AfD. At least worth a redirect to the film. --Michig (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Odd that Coin created most of these articles he wants deleted now, too. Learning how and when to use redirect would be a good first step. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - viable search term without notability. Also, as the prior 2 editors mentioned, you can just WP:BOLDly redirect any article in good faith, especially ones where you created the article and have been the primary writer/maintainer. There's no real reason to think there'd be opposition to this, and if there was, then come here. Sergecross73 msg me 16:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just because I created the article once upon a time, I didn't think that was reason enough to be Bold and redirect the article without a discussion. After creation, the article does not belong to me, but to the community.--Coin945 (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sentiment that "the published article belongs to the world, not you" is generally correct, but as stated, you may WP:BOLDly redirect any article if you are doing in in good-faith. You just need to stop and discuss as soon as someone disagrees/challenges/reverts you. The fact that you created it and were the primary contributor was just made as a comment of the unlikelihood of being challenged. For example, when you're dealing with an article that averages around 1 to 9 edits a year and averages about 2 to 9 page views a day, you may as well start with a bold redirect attempt, because its unlikely to face opposition. People hardly knew it existed in the first place. Sergecross73 msg me 13:44, 25 January 2018 (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.