Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2011 August 3
2011 August 5 >

4 August 2011

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Alan Parsons in a Winter Wonderland ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Closer interpreted the debate incorrectly. Consensus was for the Article NOT to remain 'as is'. Attempts to carry out the spirit of the consensus (and, what I believe what the closer ment), have met with reversion. A attempt to discuss was instantly met with 'Take it to DRV'?!? so here we are. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 22:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply

further comments from Nom: WP:NSONGS makes it rather clear; "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter..."etc etc etc. The question boils down to: If a person is paid to Review Music, should that review be enough to denote WP:N for the song. The Album this song was released on is equal to a mixed tape, with little more than a single sentence mention from each paid reviewer. There is no depth to the reviews at all. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 23:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Further comment to Nom What should happen to an article due to WP:NSONGS is completely irrelevant to the closure of an AFD discussion. Anyone closing a discussion must make their decision on the consensus formed in the discussion, otherwise the entire process would be worthless and admins could base closures on their own opinions. The only consensus found on the AFD was that it should not be deleted. I am starting a formal merge proposal for the page. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Appologies, but that was not the consensus. Consensus was that it should not stay. Its a Guidline, of course it should be considered by the closing admin. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 04:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse close Arguments for merging and keep were both weak at best and while there were more people who stated that it should be merged or redirected there was no consensus for either. The closing admin is correct that a merge discussion can take place on the talk page of the article. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • The consensus was for a redirect to Grandaddy#Singles, which is unfortunate because there's no such section. Therefore we have to create it, which makes the outcome of the AfD a smerge rather than a redirect. Talk about how to achieve this on the talk page, please, but bear in mind the AfD outcome should prevail, which means that at the end of your talk-page discussion there isn't going to be a separate article with this title. There's going to be a redirect to a section of Grandaddy. It's true that deletion review isn't normally interested in overturning a "keep" to a "merge" or a "redirect" or whatever. That's because there's no use of the administrative tools involved, and we assume that good faith editors are capable of sorting this out themselves on the talk page. But the consensus at that AfD is enforceable, if the talk page route isn't working.— S Marshall T/ C 23:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse close, and discussion should proceed on the talk page (perhaps requiring that a proper merge proposal be listed at WP:PM to gather attention). In my view, the closing statement doesn't give a redirect or merge outcome any prevalence, only stating that there was a clear consensus against deletion. Whether the article would stay as it is or not is now outside of the scope of the AfD, and DRV is not an appropriate venue to sentence one way or the other - frankie ( talk) 00:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. Clearly within the closer's discretion, and there's no consensus in the AFD to do anything except not delete it. No wikipedia policies or guidelines give administrators the authority to settle a dispute of this sort by fiat, and the amount of urgency involved in settling this dispute is vanishingly small. We all should have, or find, better things to do. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 02:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment- it should be made very clear that an AfD result of "keep" or "no consensus" is not an endorsement of the article as it stands, or an excuse to shoot down merger or redirection proposals. Reyk YO! 03:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Reyk is correct here. Just like there is no "innocent" ruling from a court, only "not guilty", AfD failure to delete an article is almost never an endorsement of the article in its current state. I would say 80+% of the AfDs in which I !vote keep, I would like to see serious restructuring, trimming, merging, or some other radical change. They key word there being "change" rather than "removal". Jclemens ( talk) 19:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment- That is what I feel happened in this case. When I attempted to carry out the merger, It was reverted (by what amounts to a Its Notable !vote) without attempt to clean up the merge, told it was a AFD:KEEP and told to take it to DRV. I will put up with an insult during Merge talks, but the guideline is clear, in several repetitions, of the course of action: "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article..." + "...articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged...". I personally do not see the point of Talk page discussions if this pattern of revert and quote a KEEP are all that will come from it. The original AFD should have stated that the Article cannot stay, if that was the intension. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 04:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. The close was fine. The merge was reverted simply because it left a section in the Grandaddy article that was completely out of place. There was no attempt to discuss prior to undertaking the merge. I stated that if Exit2DOS2000 believed the AFD closure was incorrect then they should take it to DRV - I don't see any real evidence that they do believe the AFD close was wrong so it seems a bit pointless bringing it here. The merge here left a 'Singles' section about one single in the Grandaddy article with no mention of any other singles - it just didn't work. The problem here is Exit2DOS's attempt to take a recommendation for further discussion by the closer as a mandate for doing what he wants without bothering with any discussion. -- Michig ( talk) 06:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply
"The merge here left a 'Singles' section about one single in the Grandaddy... " Thats a poor excuse for reverting back to an article where consensus and guidelines were clear, it did not warrent its own Article. This is just more of your Its Notable voting, just like in the AFD about this article. You (an administrator) of all people should have realized the guidlines involved, as well as how useless a "It's Plenty Notable" !vote is. If you didnt like how the merge was done WP:SOFIXIT and add more to the Grandaddy Article. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 08:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Consensus is reached by discussion, not by individuals deciding what is right. This is all rather irrelevant to DRV though isn't it?-- Michig ( talk) 11:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Thats what the AFD was for. Thats where it was closed with "further discussion on the desirability of a merge or redirect can take place on the article's talk page if desired". But, by your reversion, you only seem to want the article to stay 'as is'. Your statement of "The result was Keep... If you have a problem with the AfD outcome, please take it to DRV." That's why I brought it here, like you suggested. And even then I was insulted for my attempt at being Bold when carrying out the merg rather than a redir. Your reversions' edit summery made it quite clear that you do not want the single included in the parent Band article. Forgive me for being Bold and attempting to follow consensus. I dont believe any of your actions are irrelevant, heavy handed yes, but not irrelevant. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 13:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply
You boldly merged against the advice ("further discussion") in the AfD's closing statement, it wasn't good and it was reverted. You then suggested the only other option was a redirect. This doesn't suggest an interest in reaching a consensus via discussion, let alone following it. -- Michig ( talk) 18:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Diary of a Bad Man ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Article was deleted several months ago for failing to establish notability from a credible source. This article is about several webisodes which have attracted millions of views in a short time period, attracting the attention of BBC News in July 2011 ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14222093). Also, various radio interviews including a comedy tour. Therefore, I think this article should be reviewed. Opinions welcome. 82.46.152.122 ( talk) 16:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply

the bbc used the headline "Muslim comedian Humza Arshad becomes internet sensation" ; the article claims 2 million views per episode and 73,000 subscribers . I'd wait at least for a 2nd RS. DGG ( talk ) 17:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Here's what I could find [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], but I cannot judge their reliability, or if any of these was presented at the AfD. There's a comment about "interviews of dubious credibility", which I guess might be these: radio part 1 part 2, video [6]; both interviews are credited to BBC Asian Network. Is there a way to confirm that it is in fact from them? At this point, I think userfication would be appropriate, but I would like to hear from others about whether this could be restored to mainspace directly - frankie ( talk) 20:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
There's certainly more there than is presented at the AfD or at the AfD for Humza Arshad. All the sources seem to be about Arshad, rather than his YouTube show, so I believe it would be a better location for the information. I'd be happy to userfy the AfD'd version of it and Diary of a Bad Man for you. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 21:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply
I agree that this should be combined with other material and used for an article about the cartoonist, who is more notable than any of his individual cartoons. Actually, I intended to do this myself as an obvious correction of error, but never got around to it. DGG ( talk ) 20:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC) reply
It'll be easier to restore it rather than have people write it up again, so the sources that were there still stand and more sources can be added. 82.46.152.122 ( talk) 14:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Gotcha - frankie ( talk) 15:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_August_4&oldid=1138437877"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2011 August 3
2011 August 5 >

4 August 2011

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Alan Parsons in a Winter Wonderland ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Closer interpreted the debate incorrectly. Consensus was for the Article NOT to remain 'as is'. Attempts to carry out the spirit of the consensus (and, what I believe what the closer ment), have met with reversion. A attempt to discuss was instantly met with 'Take it to DRV'?!? so here we are. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 22:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply

further comments from Nom: WP:NSONGS makes it rather clear; "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter..."etc etc etc. The question boils down to: If a person is paid to Review Music, should that review be enough to denote WP:N for the song. The Album this song was released on is equal to a mixed tape, with little more than a single sentence mention from each paid reviewer. There is no depth to the reviews at all. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 23:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Further comment to Nom What should happen to an article due to WP:NSONGS is completely irrelevant to the closure of an AFD discussion. Anyone closing a discussion must make their decision on the consensus formed in the discussion, otherwise the entire process would be worthless and admins could base closures on their own opinions. The only consensus found on the AFD was that it should not be deleted. I am starting a formal merge proposal for the page. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Appologies, but that was not the consensus. Consensus was that it should not stay. Its a Guidline, of course it should be considered by the closing admin. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 04:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse close Arguments for merging and keep were both weak at best and while there were more people who stated that it should be merged or redirected there was no consensus for either. The closing admin is correct that a merge discussion can take place on the talk page of the article. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • The consensus was for a redirect to Grandaddy#Singles, which is unfortunate because there's no such section. Therefore we have to create it, which makes the outcome of the AfD a smerge rather than a redirect. Talk about how to achieve this on the talk page, please, but bear in mind the AfD outcome should prevail, which means that at the end of your talk-page discussion there isn't going to be a separate article with this title. There's going to be a redirect to a section of Grandaddy. It's true that deletion review isn't normally interested in overturning a "keep" to a "merge" or a "redirect" or whatever. That's because there's no use of the administrative tools involved, and we assume that good faith editors are capable of sorting this out themselves on the talk page. But the consensus at that AfD is enforceable, if the talk page route isn't working.— S Marshall T/ C 23:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse close, and discussion should proceed on the talk page (perhaps requiring that a proper merge proposal be listed at WP:PM to gather attention). In my view, the closing statement doesn't give a redirect or merge outcome any prevalence, only stating that there was a clear consensus against deletion. Whether the article would stay as it is or not is now outside of the scope of the AfD, and DRV is not an appropriate venue to sentence one way or the other - frankie ( talk) 00:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. Clearly within the closer's discretion, and there's no consensus in the AFD to do anything except not delete it. No wikipedia policies or guidelines give administrators the authority to settle a dispute of this sort by fiat, and the amount of urgency involved in settling this dispute is vanishingly small. We all should have, or find, better things to do. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 02:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment- it should be made very clear that an AfD result of "keep" or "no consensus" is not an endorsement of the article as it stands, or an excuse to shoot down merger or redirection proposals. Reyk YO! 03:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Reyk is correct here. Just like there is no "innocent" ruling from a court, only "not guilty", AfD failure to delete an article is almost never an endorsement of the article in its current state. I would say 80+% of the AfDs in which I !vote keep, I would like to see serious restructuring, trimming, merging, or some other radical change. They key word there being "change" rather than "removal". Jclemens ( talk) 19:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment- That is what I feel happened in this case. When I attempted to carry out the merger, It was reverted (by what amounts to a Its Notable !vote) without attempt to clean up the merge, told it was a AFD:KEEP and told to take it to DRV. I will put up with an insult during Merge talks, but the guideline is clear, in several repetitions, of the course of action: "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article..." + "...articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged...". I personally do not see the point of Talk page discussions if this pattern of revert and quote a KEEP are all that will come from it. The original AFD should have stated that the Article cannot stay, if that was the intension. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 04:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. The close was fine. The merge was reverted simply because it left a section in the Grandaddy article that was completely out of place. There was no attempt to discuss prior to undertaking the merge. I stated that if Exit2DOS2000 believed the AFD closure was incorrect then they should take it to DRV - I don't see any real evidence that they do believe the AFD close was wrong so it seems a bit pointless bringing it here. The merge here left a 'Singles' section about one single in the Grandaddy article with no mention of any other singles - it just didn't work. The problem here is Exit2DOS's attempt to take a recommendation for further discussion by the closer as a mandate for doing what he wants without bothering with any discussion. -- Michig ( talk) 06:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply
"The merge here left a 'Singles' section about one single in the Grandaddy... " Thats a poor excuse for reverting back to an article where consensus and guidelines were clear, it did not warrent its own Article. This is just more of your Its Notable voting, just like in the AFD about this article. You (an administrator) of all people should have realized the guidlines involved, as well as how useless a "It's Plenty Notable" !vote is. If you didnt like how the merge was done WP:SOFIXIT and add more to the Grandaddy Article. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 08:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Consensus is reached by discussion, not by individuals deciding what is right. This is all rather irrelevant to DRV though isn't it?-- Michig ( talk) 11:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Thats what the AFD was for. Thats where it was closed with "further discussion on the desirability of a merge or redirect can take place on the article's talk page if desired". But, by your reversion, you only seem to want the article to stay 'as is'. Your statement of "The result was Keep... If you have a problem with the AfD outcome, please take it to DRV." That's why I brought it here, like you suggested. And even then I was insulted for my attempt at being Bold when carrying out the merg rather than a redir. Your reversions' edit summery made it quite clear that you do not want the single included in the parent Band article. Forgive me for being Bold and attempting to follow consensus. I dont believe any of your actions are irrelevant, heavy handed yes, but not irrelevant. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 13:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply
You boldly merged against the advice ("further discussion") in the AfD's closing statement, it wasn't good and it was reverted. You then suggested the only other option was a redirect. This doesn't suggest an interest in reaching a consensus via discussion, let alone following it. -- Michig ( talk) 18:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Diary of a Bad Man ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Article was deleted several months ago for failing to establish notability from a credible source. This article is about several webisodes which have attracted millions of views in a short time period, attracting the attention of BBC News in July 2011 ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14222093). Also, various radio interviews including a comedy tour. Therefore, I think this article should be reviewed. Opinions welcome. 82.46.152.122 ( talk) 16:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply

the bbc used the headline "Muslim comedian Humza Arshad becomes internet sensation" ; the article claims 2 million views per episode and 73,000 subscribers . I'd wait at least for a 2nd RS. DGG ( talk ) 17:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Here's what I could find [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], but I cannot judge their reliability, or if any of these was presented at the AfD. There's a comment about "interviews of dubious credibility", which I guess might be these: radio part 1 part 2, video [6]; both interviews are credited to BBC Asian Network. Is there a way to confirm that it is in fact from them? At this point, I think userfication would be appropriate, but I would like to hear from others about whether this could be restored to mainspace directly - frankie ( talk) 20:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
There's certainly more there than is presented at the AfD or at the AfD for Humza Arshad. All the sources seem to be about Arshad, rather than his YouTube show, so I believe it would be a better location for the information. I'd be happy to userfy the AfD'd version of it and Diary of a Bad Man for you. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 21:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply
I agree that this should be combined with other material and used for an article about the cartoonist, who is more notable than any of his individual cartoons. Actually, I intended to do this myself as an obvious correction of error, but never got around to it. DGG ( talk ) 20:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC) reply
It'll be easier to restore it rather than have people write it up again, so the sources that were there still stand and more sources can be added. 82.46.152.122 ( talk) 14:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Gotcha - frankie ( talk) 15:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_August_4&oldid=1138437877"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE