| Revision as of 17:09, 25 November 2006 editXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits →[]: closing (overturn)← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 17:49, 5 September 2022 edit undoHouseBlaster (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators58,050 editsm Fix linter errors (via WP:JWB) |
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) |
| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
|
{| width = "100%" |
|
{| width = "100%" |
|
|- |
|
|- |
|
! width="50%" align="left" | <font color="gray"><</font> ] |
|
! width="50%" align="left" | <span style="color:gray;"><</span> ] |
|
! width="50%" align="right" | ] <font color="gray">></font> |
|
! width="50%" align="right" | ] <span style="color:gray;">></span> |
|
|} |
|
|} |
|
</div> |
|
</div> |
| Line 14: |
Line 14: |
|
Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page. |
|
Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page. |
|
--> |
|
--> |
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
This is an ] single, but it was as "No label, no distribution, no verification: A7". I know that m-flo is notable; they certainly meet the ] by having gone on a tour of Japan (one of their albums is a live one from that tour). According to that page, consensus is that albums for notable musicians are fine. There was also a redirect at ]; that might actually be a better title. --] 01:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion'''. They meet the WP:MUSIC criteria. That means that their PUBLISHED albums are NOTABLE. That does not mean that every piece of music they have ever made is VERIFIABLE. Notability does not automatically mean inclusion, inclusion also requires multiple verifiable sources. And given that you have not addressed the "No distribution" comment, I assume there was none. -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 02:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**I don't know enough about m-flo, but I would assume there was distribution. I know it was a popular single/EP, but I don't know how to find sources for that. Is enough? --] 18:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Restore''', possibly send to AfD. No label + no distribution doesn't necessarily mean no verification - look at ] for an example. This should have never been speedied. --] <small>]</small> 04:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*:I think the indended meaning was "A, B and C", rather than "A + B = C". ] <small></small> 04:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*::Yes, but A and B are irrelevant here, and C, while potentially problematic, could have been dealt with much differently. --] <small>]</small> 14:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''' - not only was there no assertion of ability, there was a compelling assertion of ''non''-notability. Subject fails policy, as above. No prejudice against creating a new, sourced, verifiable article. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*I did not get very verbose with the deletion comment, but here is why I stand by my deletion: I noticed that we have an "loves mflo" scattered all across Misplaced Pages, that someone had been pretty seriously putting in everything about a supposed J-pop/rap act that simply couldn't be verified, much less shown to be a towering figure, on non-Japanese sources. Of all of these, and I left most of them alone, this one was the most egregious example of something that Misplaced Pages is not. Here is the article, as it was: |
|
|
*::"an ] by m-flo on ], ]. It features rapper ] and ] singer ] on the title track, as well as ] on "tO yOUR bEAT" and 坂本龍一 on "I WANNA BE DOWN (The Scumfrog Remix)". A music video was also released for the title track." |
|
|
*It was an '''ep!''' Albums are barely included, ep's are not, unless they're just plain staggering. I can imagine that the "Atmosphere" ep by ] might be included or ''],'' since those were Song of the Year winners that were not available in any other form, but yet another ep? Yet another ep article written in such a way that yo yo yo fanz can understand and no one else can? No. Just plain no. If "m-flo" is as important to Japanese rap as the Beatles to rock and roll, then fold all the danged mini-play entities into the main article. Otherwise, this is an attempt at multiplying mentions of the name (and only one more instance of it, since someone has been really hard at work getting the name mentioned in multiple articles, which looked like page rank boosting to me). ] 12:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**Albums are "barely included?" I don't know how you come to that conclusion at all. --] <small>]</small> 14:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
***We should not have an article on every album by every artist. Even the largest sites on the web that take music as their ''sole concern'', like AllMusicGuide, don't do that. For a long time, we rejected all articles on all albums. Then we allowed in the few landmark records, like Elvis! We have slowly eroded some of our barriers and begun allowing those with very definite sales. There is no "we must take an album," no "we must take every album from every major artist," and no "we must take any e.p." Common sense and the deletion policy still apply: it has to be significant, verifiable, and well delimited. Most records are not. ] 15:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
****Well, I disagree with that, and common practice definitely does as well. We don't leave off movies by notable directors or most books by notable authors, so I see no reason to consider disrupting a workable status quo on this one. In my mind, common sense demands it. --] <small>]</small> 16:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**"loves m-flo" what they use instead of "featuring". --] 18:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse Deletion''' -- WP:MUSIC is pretty clear. Band notable, an EP is not. Should we also have articles over every single song and what they wear?--<font face="Verdana">]]]<small><sup>]|]</sup></small></font> 20:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''', if no assertion of the album ''in and of itself'' was made, the album fits under A7. Should remain without prejudice against a future article which can assert and prove notability. ] 09:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
:{{la|Misplaced Pages:Esperanza/Coffee Lounge}} — (]) |
|
|
The MfD was closed only a day after nomination, potentially shutting out voters. ]]]<sup>]</sup><small>]</small><sub>]</sub> 00:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::<small>Fixed MfD link, ] <small></small> 00:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
* We have no voters, because XfD are not votes. That said, the discussion was closed rather quickly, after only 6 hours. The reasoning in the debate appears cogent, though. ] <small></small> 00:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion'''. The arguments were sound, and there was indeed an overwhelming consensus to delete. Process isn't there so large consensuses can be filibustered due to masses of "Keep because I like it!" votes. -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 02:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse Deletion''', valid MfD. ] 02:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**Not to be patronizing, but don't you think that an MfD closed after 6 hours deserves a little more explanation for endorsement than "valid MfD"? -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 02:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*I just found out Esperanza has an IRC channel; they remain free to talk about beverages there. —]→] • 09:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse'''. Overwhelming consensus on both the Overhaul and MFD. ''']''' <sup>(] ] ])</sup> 10:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse''', I believe '']'' counts as substantial support for deletion from the people who use it. (]) 12:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
&'''Endorse'''. I may not have closed it that quickly, but there's no reason to have another 250K MfD page with no cogent arguments in favor of keeping. The fact that there appears to be a concensus at '']'' for deletion provides an added reason for deletion. — ] | ] 17:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse Deletion''' - a case of common sense over pedantry. Per the arguments above, and also ]. ] 18:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''', though not early close as it was pointless. However, the nominator has not given us any reason to think that it would have ended differently had it continued. --]<sup>]</sup> 22:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn''' - closure after 6 hours? Good grief! I fully support getting rid of the thing, but you can't just close an MFD after six hours. Plenty of users don't edit over the weekend. Anyone who didn't just so happen to check MFD during that 6-hour period was shut out of the process. ] 03:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''overturn'''. 6 Hours obviously isn't long enough, you can't judge an "overwhelming consensus" that quickly. --] <small>]</small> 03:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''', the "not available on the weekend" argument holds no water. It doesn't mean that the entirety of Esperanza wasn't available. The Coffee Lounge is a waste of space on WikiPedia. It's ].--] 05:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse''', common sense should be applied here (for once!) ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 13:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:*On another note, prepare for the Esperanza cavalry to come here and apply 20 "overturns" in 20 minutes...--] 14:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse closure'''. If the Esperanza cavalry makes an appearance they'll have to contend with the Cabal's Own Pikemen, by gad! Misplaced Pages is not a chatroom. Don't they have an IRC channel (if not, why not)? ] ] 14:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse''' - It was going to be deleted anyway, by Esperanzans. Cabalist calvary ready for any charges by Esperanzans. And if anyone was shut out of the process, they should be '''here'''....and I don't see anyone but badlydrawnjeff. --<font face="Verdana">]]]<small><sup>]|]</sup></small></font> 20:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse''' the prior discussion at ] was factored in to the early close and ] probably applies by its terms (though I think it makes a better speedy keep than a speedy delete argument). Per ], ], Arthur Rubin, and others above nothing would be gained by reopening the discussion so it should remain closed. That said, I would encourages closers to let these discussions run longer, at least 24 hors if not the full five days, unless an explict ] at least arguably applies. ] 21:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''', it was deleted per the overhaul by Esperanzians. If you really want this back go try talking with them; don't take it to Misplaced Pages in general just yet. --] 22:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''', this was obviously ], and only one objection here has been registered here thus far. ] 09:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC) |
|