My Darkest Days ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This article about a new Canadian band has been speedied four times on notability grounds since January 2008, mostly recently in June this year. Everyone Dies In the End has rewritten an updated version here. A request yesterday to unprotect the title so he could insert the new version was declined (see the discussion here) with the advice to take it to DRV. I'm bringing it here because I think the band is now borderline notable, with its first single #9 on the iTunes list for Canada, and its video #62 on the iTunes list worldwide. Also the title's getting a few hits even while deleted, so people seem to be looking for it. It got 888 hits in June, [1] and 144 hits so far this month. [2] SlimVirgin ^{talk| contribs} 04:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Undelete/unprotect as nominator. SlimVirgin ^{talk| contribs} 04:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply
• Undelete - as I said many times to the protecting admin (which he just ignores) that (under WP:Band) this band satisfifies number 1, number 2 (since it's on the itune most download rock song at 9), number 4, number 11, and number 12 (they did an interview for etalk which has yet to air though). "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria" that's wikipedia guidelines. This clearly is a band that is notable. -- Everyone Dies In the End ( talk) 04:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply

  This was speedily deleted as criteria A7, no assertion of importance/significnce which is somewhat lower than standard than WP:BAND, so what DRV needs to review is if the rewrite overcomes that. Beyond that I'll note the wording is "may be notable" not "is notable" questions as to which it is are decided at AFD. However to comment on the claims of meeting (1) and (2) for (1) I don't think the criteria for Natinoal music chart generally includes the genre specific subsets of Itunes - so if this does go to AFD you might have to do better than that for (2) I assume you say if passed this for this etalk interview - however than criteria list amoungst exclusions "other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves" which is generally what an interview is. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 07:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Itunes Canadian Rock Chart is comparable to the US Modern Rock Chart. Of course the charts are for genre specifics. You are also forgetting it's 62nd on the music video chart of itune in the world. Canada doesn't have a real Rock Chart (There are a couple but they're aren't notable they are also never listed on a discography). Also, they are 115 on the Canadian charts most downloaded (to check open itunes so if you don't have itunes you can't check and remember you must be in Canada's itunes as it will detect your location to change the itunes location to do this go to the bottom right hand of the page click the flag (this flag will be the Countries chart) and then click the Canadian flag) After you are on Canadian itune go to the music section, click song of the top song on the right toolbar and you have the Canadian chart. This band is 115 on the itunes Canada chart, 62nd on the itunes most downloaded videos (in the world) and 9th on the itunes Canada Rock chart.-- Everyone Dies In the End ( talk) 08:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Unless Itunes is the official chart in Canada this is no reason to undelete this article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply

There is no such thing as an official music chart. They are many national charts the most notable ones are the one done by Nielsen SoundScan, itunes and Muchmusic in Canada. There is no official chart. All of these are Canada's charts since they incorporate the popularity of song in Canada only that's what makes it a National Chart. There is no official in the guidelines for that reason too.-- Everyone Dies In the End ( talk) 11:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Just to add, The Nielsen Top Digital Download chart gets their info from Napster, puretracks, iTunes Canada, and Archambault. Since Nielson releases their charts a week after the final dat (IE July 1st's week was released July 8th and July 8th will be released on the 15th) and itunes Chart is updated daily. Since Nielson gets their stuff from itune it will be on their charts either on the 15th or the 22nd depending on when the band cracked the chart on itunes. itunes is one of the most notable charts now.-- Everyone Dies In the End ( talk) 11:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Unprotect and allow the new userspace version to be moved to mainspace, on the basis of a reasonable contest of an old speedy deletion. No prejudice regarding a subsequent AfD nomination. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply
• Unprotect/allow recreation per SmokeyJoe. The draft article has some sources and is clearly going to have a shot of being kept at an AfD, which is all we should really expect. Jclemens ( talk) 21:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply
• Unprotect/Allow recreation-As of now, the page easily passes A7. Notability can be argued in an AfD.-- Fyre2387 ^{( talk • contribs)} 23:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment - the band is now 7th on the itunes Canadian Rock Chart and 104 on the Canadian itunes Chart. They are now ahead of otherbig Canadian bands like Three Days Grace, and Stereos-- Everyone Dies In the End ( talk) 05:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply
• I personally don't find the iTunes charts to be compelling sources, especially considering a substantial lack of coverage of the band in other sources (from an admittedly quick glance). However, as noted, the band may nudge above the requirements of WP:MUSIC, so unprotect and allow recreation for discussion at an AFD. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Storm Front (disambiguation) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

N.B. Administrator has been asked about the deletion but has declined to reverse it. This redirect was create following the guidelines at WP:DAB, specifically at WP:INTDABLINK: "To link to a disambiguation page (rather than to a page whose topic is a specific meaning), link to the title that includes the text "(disambiguation)", even if that's a redirect... (If the redirect does not yet exist, create it and tag it with {{R to disambiguation page}}.)" (my emphasis). This is clearly not an implausible redirect under the guidelines for WP:CSD#R3. Tassedethe ( talk) 04:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. Never mind what the guidelines say, let us apply simple common sense! Storm Front and stormfront are both disambiguation pages with direct links between them. What earthly purpose is served by creating Storm Front (disambiguation). And while we're on the subject stormfront (disambiguation) is a pointless orphan which needs deleted. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 04:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply
• undelete - It's very common on wikipedia to have Something (disambiguation) redirect to Something. The guildlines clearly says it's fine. The guideline say, "When to link to a disambiguation page: Redirects from page names that have "(disambiguation)" in their titles – Britain (disambiguation) redirects to the "Britain" disambiguation page." the guidelines says it's fine so it's fine. There is no need for this discussion as the guidelines clearly say this is fine.-- Everyone Dies In the End ( talk) 10:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply
• undelete. Sorry, RHAworth, but redirects are cheap, the WP:DAB page seems to endorse this practice for some reason, and templates like {{ about}} automatically use the "(disambiguation)" title. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 11:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Sure redirects are cheap. My real objection was the attempt to make Stormfront point to Storm Front via a redirect. I would not go so far as Verbal and describe it as vandalism. But may we have a ruling here that Stormfront may link directly to Storm Front and vice-versa? — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 15:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply
• Further comment The place to discuss the nature of redirects between Stormfront and Storm Front is at Talk:Stormfront. The use of the (disambiguation) redirect outlined at WP:INTDABLINK is for 3 main reasons. To mark the link as intentional and therefore not needing to be 'fixed'. There is a whole project dedicated to fixing links to DAB pages at WP:DPL. To make it clear to the reader what the page is (per WP:ASTONISH). And also to ensure that such links are not broken if a primary topic appears and takes the main page. Tassedethe ( talk) 16:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply
• Is there a good reason why we have two disambiguation pages, one with and one without the space? Let's put 'em all into one big spot. I agree that redirects are cheap and we should probably have them, but that's not the most important issue here, in my mind. Jclemens ( talk) 21:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply
• Restore-Pages like this comply with both relevant guidelines and common practice.-- Fyre2387 ^{( talk • contribs)} 23:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply
• Restore - the reason for having the (disambiguation) page exist is that if you want to link to the disambiguation page, it is better to link to Pagename (disambiguation) rather than Pagename itself. That facilitates checking for incorrect inbound links to the disambiguation page (eg, linking to Storm Front when they meant Storm Front (album) or some such thing). -- B ( talk) 15:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Delete Storm Front is already a disambiguation page, there's no need to disabiguate further ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 20:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Just for clarification, this page is/was a redirect, not a separate disambiguation page. The reason you want this redirect is that it makes repairing disambiguation links either. If you go to what links here, and you see five inbound links to Storm Front, you need to visit each one to see if it should be linking to a particular article instead. By making intentional links go to the (disambiguation) redirect, you don't have to sort through those and only have to worry about the ones that should be going somewhere else. -- B ( talk) 20:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply