Vanished user alaij23jrkef8hj4fiu34t34 (talk | contribs) have a nice day. |
Simon Dodd (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
:::And as the guideline says—again, if you bothered to read guidelines before spouting about them instead of cherry-picking the parts that help your case—some motivations for and patterns of notification are ''not'' appropriate, most importantly ''vote stacking'': "Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinion." If the users are all inclusionists whom Ending-start happens to know will reliably show up and vote to keep—which is exactly what's happened here, making a pretty good prima facie case for vote stacking—that's a CANVAS violation. Hence the request for Ending-start to explain him/herself.<font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd</font> <small>{ [[User:Simon Dodd|U]]·[[User talk:Simon Dodd|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Simon_Dodd|C]]·[[WP:LAW]] }</small> 04:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC) |
:::And as the guideline says—again, if you bothered to read guidelines before spouting about them instead of cherry-picking the parts that help your case—some motivations for and patterns of notification are ''not'' appropriate, most importantly ''vote stacking'': "Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinion." If the users are all inclusionists whom Ending-start happens to know will reliably show up and vote to keep—which is exactly what's happened here, making a pretty good prima facie case for vote stacking—that's a CANVAS violation. Hence the request for Ending-start to explain him/herself.<font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd</font> <small>{ [[User:Simon Dodd|U]]·[[User talk:Simon Dodd|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Simon_Dodd|C]]·[[WP:LAW]] }</small> 04:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::Okay you pick and choose the parts you like, continue reading "Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinion. '''(which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement)'''". Does my userpage imply anything other than that i write music articles? no, doesnt show my opinion on rules or anything similar, only thing it imply is that i am a music editor, which is what this discussion is about, hence why i am here, as stated by CANVAS to invite users "who are known for expertise in the field". Tho i admit he invited too many people but thats a different matter. Bottom line, clear [[WP:SNOWBALL]] consensus that article in full meets [[WP:NSONG]]. I am done here, have a nice day. - <font face="Malgun Gothic" color="#273BE2">[[User:L-l-CLK-l-l|(CK)Lakeshade]]</font> - <font face="Malgun Gothic" color="#CCCCFF">[[User talk:L-l-CLK-l-l|talk2me]]</font> - 04:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC) |
::::Okay you pick and choose the parts you like, continue reading "Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinion. '''(which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement)'''". Does my userpage imply anything other than that i write music articles? no, doesnt show my opinion on rules or anything similar, only thing it imply is that i am a music editor, which is what this discussion is about, hence why i am here, as stated by CANVAS to invite users "who are known for expertise in the field". Tho i admit he invited too many people but thats a different matter. Bottom line, clear [[WP:SNOWBALL]] consensus that article in full meets [[WP:NSONG]]. I am done here, have a nice day. - <font face="Malgun Gothic" color="#273BE2">[[User:L-l-CLK-l-l|(CK)Lakeshade]]</font> - <font face="Malgun Gothic" color="#CCCCFF">[[User talk:L-l-CLK-l-l|talk2me]]</font> - 04:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::::Does your userpage imply anything other than that you write music articles? Yes, it does. It implies that you are strongly in favor of an exceedingly lax interpretation of NSONGS, as your comments here demonstrate. Your user page shows that you have an inexplicable affinity for editing utterly worthless articles that should be deleted from any serious encyclopedia. And the bottom line is far from a SNOWBALL situation (and if you had read SNOWBALL, you would know that it observes that the validity of a SNOW close is, paradoxically, never known until after the debate has run); it appears to be a case where a fifteen year old editor who's been here less than a year notified a bunch of reliable votes for music articles, they showed up and voted as a block, and then a seventeen year old editor claimed a snow close. As Wayne's World might have said (look it up, you're too young to remember) "Yeah, right!" Dude, you can't even write properly (the number of errors on this page alone are frightening: "you're" for "your", "i"), how can you possibly ask to be taken seriously as a contributor? This is is a project for adults and adult subjects, not childish nonsense.<font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd</font> <small>{ [[User:Simon Dodd|U]]·[[User talk:Simon Dodd|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Simon_Dodd|C]]·[[WP:LAW]] }</small> 05:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::Notifying specific lists of users (particularly a list as long as 11 users) is ''always'' a canvassing problem. [[User:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">''Prodego''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">talk</font>]]</sup> 04:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC) |
::::Notifying specific lists of users (particularly a list as long as 11 users) is ''always'' a canvassing problem. [[User:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">''Prodego''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">talk</font>]]</sup> 04:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 05:01, 7 April 2011
The Writer (song)
- The Writer (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- Starry Eyed (Ellie Goulding song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Under the Sheets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Lights (Ellie Goulding song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Guns and Horses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A proliferation of WP:FANCRUFT violating WP:NSONGS. NSONGS is crystal clear: While "[s]ongs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts… are probably notable," "[n]otability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article…." The presumption is that individual songs will be treated in an article about the artist or album unless there is something outstanding about the song that warrants treatment in an independent article. Because there's nothing invidually distinctive about these singles that lifts them up from the mine run, nothing warrants a separate article and they should be deleted (or merged into their parent album). - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- FD: I recently proposed a merge and encountered a bunch of self-selecting WP:ILIKEIT resistance; the tags were just removed by another editor and rather than reinstate them, it's time to try it this way. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep — You're reasoning for the deletion of this article (and the other ones by Ellie you nominated) don't make much sense to me. Every article you nominated passes WP:NSONGS. The songs have been 1) released as a single 2) have charted and 3) the articles itself are very well sourced. Yes, the articles are fairly bare, but in no way should these be deleted off of Wikipedia. Just because not many people edit the articles doesn't mean it is it is WP:FAN. From what I see, she is not an extremely known artist, so her articles would not get as many edits, as say Lady Gaga's would. The articles are notable, so I see no problem with them being here on Wikipedia. ℥nding·start 00:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? None of them pass NSONGS. None of the singles have anything that makes them stand out above the mine run of singles, as NSONGS requires. They're just singles, and the articles simply recite their charting position and fancruft descriptions of the video and song content. Plainly NSONG. Also: "You're" means "you are." You mean "your."- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Actually they do. WP:NSONG states; "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article [...] Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts [...] are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Two things to note, the first being if the song charted it is allowed a page as long as it is not a stub. None of these articles are stubs, all articles contain information notable outside the parent album, such as music videos, reviews, charting, and background information. Myself and 5 other users (so far) are telling you they meet guidelines. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- That's nice, but you're wrong. NSONGS is absolutely crystal clear: songs don't get individual articles unless something about them rises above the norm. Otherwise they are dealt with in the article about their parent article. I already explained that in the nom—if in doubt, re-read it and read NSONGS more carefully. Your position amounts to the claim that what NSONGS gives with one hand it takes away with the other, creating both a rule and an almost unlimited exception. It doesn't. Such a conclusion would be absurd and would defeat the entire point of NSONGS, which is to prevent the proliferation of mindless fancruft like this articles. Nothing about these singles warrants a separate article, so they should be deleted (or merged) and redirected to the parent article. If you disagree, your beef isn't with the nom but the policy—take it up on WP:NSONGS.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Alright, thats your view. But you are correct, "NSONGS is absolutely crystal clear" yes it is. It is clear, "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." Meet any of those guidelines as long as its not a stub means it gets a page. As you can clearly see below what i have just stated is the actual guideline, not your interpretation. Im walking away now, have a nice day. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- NSONGS is crystal clear: It gets more so if you don't stop reading at a convenient point. Notability is NOT enough for an independent article—read the part that starts "notability aside." And your argument that any article that isn't a stub is a valid article is absolutely absurd.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Alright, thats your view. But you are correct, "NSONGS is absolutely crystal clear" yes it is. It is clear, "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." Meet any of those guidelines as long as its not a stub means it gets a page. As you can clearly see below what i have just stated is the actual guideline, not your interpretation. Im walking away now, have a nice day. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- That's nice, but you're wrong. NSONGS is absolutely crystal clear: songs don't get individual articles unless something about them rises above the norm. Otherwise they are dealt with in the article about their parent article. I already explained that in the nom—if in doubt, re-read it and read NSONGS more carefully. Your position amounts to the claim that what NSONGS gives with one hand it takes away with the other, creating both a rule and an almost unlimited exception. It doesn't. Such a conclusion would be absurd and would defeat the entire point of NSONGS, which is to prevent the proliferation of mindless fancruft like this articles. Nothing about these singles warrants a separate article, so they should be deleted (or merged) and redirected to the parent article. If you disagree, your beef isn't with the nom but the policy—take it up on WP:NSONGS.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Actually they do. WP:NSONG states; "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article [...] Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts [...] are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Two things to note, the first being if the song charted it is allowed a page as long as it is not a stub. None of these articles are stubs, all articles contain information notable outside the parent album, such as music videos, reviews, charting, and background information. Myself and 5 other users (so far) are telling you they meet guidelines. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? None of them pass NSONGS. None of the singles have anything that makes them stand out above the mine run of singles, as NSONGS requires. They're just singles, and the articles simply recite their charting position and fancruft descriptions of the video and song content. Plainly NSONG. Also: "You're" means "you are." You mean "your."- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy keep pointy WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 00:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep - WP:POINT-ish, i read the merge thing weeks ago and consensus (including admin consensus) told you that the merge was clearly against you. All articles pass in full, WP:GNG, WP:SONG and most important, WP:NSONG. This is a silly nomination and should be closed as keep. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 00:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. Diddo. I Help, When I Can. [12] 00:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep, its going to be snowing. Clearly the nominator knows nothing about music articles on Wikipedia or WP:SONGS. Candyo32 01:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Pointy as Tbhotch and Lakeshade stated. The articles have a fair amount of sources, and not fan cruft. 03:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- WP:CANVAS problem? User:Ending-start, would you explain how you selected the 11 users you asked to participate in this AfD this evening after your first !vote?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Will gladly answer this as well. WP:CANVAS; "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." Appropriate notification; "On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who [...] who are known for expertise in the field," <--- Check, we are all music editors and know the guidelines. "Ideally, such notices should be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion". Also check. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- That looks like a pretty clear WP:CANVASS problem to me. Prodego talk 04:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Why? What part of WP:CANVASS is being violated? Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Based upon what? State what part of the policy, as i explained above, what is allowed according to CANVAS are neutral notifications of users with experience in the field, which is what Ending-start has done. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- And as the guideline says—again, if you bothered to read guidelines before spouting about them instead of cherry-picking the parts that help your case—some motivations for and patterns of notification are not appropriate, most importantly vote stacking: "Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinion." If the users are all inclusionists whom Ending-start happens to know will reliably show up and vote to keep—which is exactly what's happened here, making a pretty good prima facie case for vote stacking—that's a CANVAS violation. Hence the request for Ending-start to explain him/herself.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Okay you pick and choose the parts you like, continue reading "Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinion. (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement)". Does my userpage imply anything other than that i write music articles? no, doesnt show my opinion on rules or anything similar, only thing it imply is that i am a music editor, which is what this discussion is about, hence why i am here, as stated by CANVAS to invite users "who are known for expertise in the field". Tho i admit he invited too many people but thats a different matter. Bottom line, clear WP:SNOWBALL consensus that article in full meets WP:NSONG. I am done here, have a nice day. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Does your userpage imply anything other than that you write music articles? Yes, it does. It implies that you are strongly in favor of an exceedingly lax interpretation of NSONGS, as your comments here demonstrate. Your user page shows that you have an inexplicable affinity for editing utterly worthless articles that should be deleted from any serious encyclopedia. And the bottom line is far from a SNOWBALL situation (and if you had read SNOWBALL, you would know that it observes that the validity of a SNOW close is, paradoxically, never known until after the debate has run); it appears to be a case where a fifteen year old editor who's been here less than a year notified a bunch of reliable votes for music articles, they showed up and voted as a block, and then a seventeen year old editor claimed a snow close. As Wayne's World might have said (look it up, you're too young to remember) "Yeah, right!" Dude, you can't even write properly (the number of errors on this page alone are frightening: "you're" for "your", "i"), how can you possibly ask to be taken seriously as a contributor? This is is a project for adults and adult subjects, not childish nonsense.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 05:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Okay you pick and choose the parts you like, continue reading "Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinion. (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement)". Does my userpage imply anything other than that i write music articles? no, doesnt show my opinion on rules or anything similar, only thing it imply is that i am a music editor, which is what this discussion is about, hence why i am here, as stated by CANVAS to invite users "who are known for expertise in the field". Tho i admit he invited too many people but thats a different matter. Bottom line, clear WP:SNOWBALL consensus that article in full meets WP:NSONG. I am done here, have a nice day. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- That looks like a pretty clear WP:CANVASS problem to me. Prodego talk 04:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Will gladly answer this as well. WP:CANVAS; "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." Appropriate notification; "On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who [...] who are known for expertise in the field," <--- Check, we are all music editors and know the guidelines. "Ideally, such notices should be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion". Also check. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Strong keep Articles meet WP:NSONGS. Seems to be WP:POINT. All of these can be greatly expanded, especially Starry Eyed. I suggest you take the time research the topic and do so. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- The Writer (song) Speedy Keep - It is (at least) a fairly well constructed article and is certainly not a stub. It has charted and is sourced. There are unfortunately many music articles in existence that are no where near this good!
- Starry Eyed (Ellie Goulding song) Speedy Keep, but - It is certainly notable, but I would like to see an actual source for the release date. The ref in the LEAD currently just goes to what appears to me to be the artist's site landing page. There is no date of Release seen there. It probably did appear there at one time however. There should also be sources shown for the Track listing section.
- Under the Sheets Speedy Keep - Notable song. Some other observations...Please use the 'ref name' or multiref function to also include the sources in the Track listing section. Ref is not needed in the LEAD for 15 Nov as it is in the Release history section.
- Lights (Ellie Goulding song) Speedy Keep - notable, sourced, no stub here either.
- Guns and Horses Speedy Keep - once again no reason to delete this one either. Comment...perhaps the LEAD could be a bit more expanded.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)