Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 12

< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 19:06, 2 March 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

Revision as of 19:06, 2 March 2023 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) < 2009 July 11 Deletion review archives: 2009 July 2009 July 13 >

12 July 2009

Owl City – Uncontroversial request fulfilled – Spartaz 21:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Owl City (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) Requesting Unsalting and Restoring of the prior article (which I believe was reasonably well fleshed out) because, since the last AfD, the band charted in the United States twice. Further sourcing is readily available. Chubbles (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Owl City – Uncontroversial request fulfilled – Spartaz 21:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Requesting Unsalting and Restoring of the prior article (which I believe was reasonably well fleshed out) because, since the last AfD, the band charted in the United States twice. Further sourcing is readily available. Chubbles (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Misplaced Pages:Long usernames – Overturn to delete. Nearly everyone who expressed an opinion here — even those endorsing the decision — stated that the consensus in the MfD in question was to delete the page. Thus, consensus was interpreted incorrectly by the closing administrator; therefore, the decision is overturned to delete. – — Aitias // discussion 22:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Misplaced Pages:Long usernames (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) I feel consensus was completely ignored by the closing admin Xavexgoem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I've tried to resolve this here, but it did not work, so I'm bringing this to DRV. Aditya _ß 10:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC) I confess this is my first time at DRV as an admin - I suppose everyone starts somewhere. I kept the page because some felt that it constituted a part of Misplaced Pages's early history. The page had not been edited since 2004, and only once in 2009 by Graham87 so as to link it to a very, very old village pump discussion (Dec 03). My determination was that there were two parties in the MfD: those who wanted it deleted per WP:DENY, and those who wanted it kept for the sake of history. I figured that the latter had a larger stake in the matter compared to the former, the latter being long term editors. So I weighed the arguments but figured that, at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter whether this page stays or goes. I went with the option that didn't deny folks their history.Xavexgoem (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Generally, it's best to avoid deletion whenever possible, so I can see why Xavexgoem went with tagging as historical. I also don't feel like WP:DENY has too terribly much to do with this, though certainly a case could be made. A good compromise would likely be to blank the page and maybe write something there instead (an essay on why/why not to have long usernames, a humor bit on some particular long usernames, et cetera). Alternatively, if Xavexgoem doesn't mind, he could go back and delete it, since I agree that the end result doesn't matter much. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC) What worried me though wasn't the end result, it was that Xavex ignored the clear consensus to delete the page, in favor of what he thought was right. While it's true that "some felt that it constituted a part of Misplaced Pages's early history", it's also true that most people felt it should be deleted. Aditya _ß 14:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Endorse - Not how I would have closed it, but it's not worth overturning. The closing admin's reasoning is sound. –Juliancolton \| 15:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC) The reasoning is fine. For a !vote. But I believe his interpretation of consensus was incorrect as he was influenced by his own personal feelings on the subject. Aditya _ß 06:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Well, yes, but it's acceptable either way. True that consensus did not exactly favor this result, but it's still a valid close. –Juliancolton \| 05:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC) For what it's worth, my personal feelings really had nothing to do with my decision. I did not and do not consider it a blind maneuver on my part; I did weigh the arguments as an administrator. That said, I do not always just count the for and against votes if the deletion discussion is in any way nuanced. The largest failure, in my opinion, was not describing my rationale for the decision, and I'm sure this discussion wouldn't have happened had I did so. Or, at any rate, my judgment on the matter wouldn't have been reduced to my personal opinion. If you want to know my personal opinion, it's that it should've been deleted a long time ago per WP:DENY (denying recognition has a long history outside Misplaced Pages). I'm happy to discuss this matter at this DRV about WP:DENY and {{historical}}, and why I don't always reach decision based solely on number of votes. But I repeat: this wasn't personal on my part. I'm not a longtime editor, and I generally agree that we should deny recognition. Xavexgoem (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Lastly, if that article is used for recognition despite the historical tag (and I'd argue that anything that hasn't been edited since 2004 is historical by default), then the WP:DENY argument certainly trumps the historical argument. Endorse - No reason to overturn, it wasn't a overwhelming consensus to delete, I would blank it though. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 16:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC) re-writing history? If it's inactive, why should WP:DENY matter? Why not keep things like they are when they're not hurting anybody? --Sigmundur (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Overturn to delete because that was the rough consensus. If the closer was tempted to overrule the consensus, he should've !voted instead of closing.—S Marshall /_Cont 19:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Endorse Last I checked WP:DENY wasn't policy, marking the page historical is what we do with pages that are inactive. Good close by admin. Whispe ring 07:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Endorse. WP:DENY is an essay, enjoys limited support and certainly does not have consensus as a deletion criterion. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Overturn to delete per rough consensus — WP:DENY is a perfectly reasonable explanation for an opinion at AfD. The keep !voters failed to argue any merit to the page, while the deleters did argue harm: I see no case to close against the numbers. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Endorse, I give more leeway towards Admin discression in MfD discussions than I do in AfD, especially when it's between historic and deleted. If this had been an admin keeping an article where the consensus was delete (like for example, if the other DRV today had been kept) I would probably have said overturn. In the end though, this is just a WP page which does no damage. In terms of DENY, I don't think this will have any measurable effect on Trolling. Replacing the page, while maintaining the history, with a redirect to the username policy seems like a fair compromise though. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 13:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Endorse as a reasonable close. I suspect I'd have closed this as 'delete' were I the admin responsible; but it is on the line and a decent argument could be made for closing it either way. ~ mazca 14:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Endorse. That was a reasonble close. The delete rationale was sound. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Considering it was closed as keep your comment seems confusing.--76.69.166.93 (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Blank content, keeping the tag, and the content in history. The majority of !voters went for "delete", although many wrongly (arguably) cited WP:DENY as mandating or justifying "delete", as blanking is arguably a preferable way to deal with such things (blanking denies recognition more effectively than staging community MfD & DRV debates). I guess that the closing admin saw this, or another weakness to the delete rationales, or recognised the vary valid point that we do and should try to avoid deleing our history. If the consensus were not for a full delete, it was certainly for a blank and mark historical, as per my & Ned's !votes, and consistent with Graham87's comments. The only other keep !votes by Stifle, and comment from Graeme Bartlett, did not specify whether the offensive content should or should not be removed from the continuing tagged page. Blanking the long usernames seems a pretty easy solution to most, and middle ground mostly satisfying everyone. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Endorse, I was a bit surprised by the decision, but it's certainly well within admin discretion. It's not worth making a fuss over. Another solution would be to actually update the page. Graham87 09:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Misplaced Pages:Long usernames – Overturn to delete. Nearly everyone who expressed an opinion here — even those endorsing the decision — stated that the consensus in the MfD in question was to delete the page. Thus, consensus was interpreted incorrectly by the closing administrator; therefore, the decision is overturned to delete. – — Aitias // discussion 22:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I feel consensus was completely ignored by the closing admin Xavexgoem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I've tried to resolve this here, but it did not work, so I'm bringing this to DRV. Aditya _ß 10:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I confess this is my first time at DRV as an admin - I suppose everyone starts somewhere. I kept the page because some felt that it constituted a part of Misplaced Pages's early history. The page had not been edited since 2004, and only once in 2009 by Graham87 so as to link it to a very, very old village pump discussion (Dec 03). My determination was that there were two parties in the MfD: those who wanted it deleted per WP:DENY, and those who wanted it kept for the sake of history. I figured that the latter had a larger stake in the matter compared to the former, the latter being long term editors. So I weighed the arguments but figured that, at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter whether this page stays or goes. I went with the option that didn't deny folks their history.Xavexgoem (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Generally, it's best to avoid deletion whenever possible, so I can see why Xavexgoem went with tagging as historical. I also don't feel like WP:DENY has too terribly much to do with this, though certainly a case could be made. A good compromise would likely be to blank the page and maybe write something there instead (an essay on why/why not to have long usernames, a humor bit on some particular long usernames, et cetera). Alternatively, if Xavexgoem doesn't mind, he could go back and delete it, since I agree that the end result doesn't matter much. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

What worried me though wasn't the end result, it was that Xavex ignored the clear consensus to delete the page, in favor of what he thought was right. While it's true that "some felt that it constituted a part of Misplaced Pages's early history", it's also true that most people felt it should be deleted. Aditya _ß 14:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Endorse - Not how I would have closed it, but it's not worth overturning. The closing admin's reasoning is sound. –Juliancolton | 15:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The reasoning is fine. For a !vote. But I believe his interpretation of consensus was incorrect as he was influenced by his own personal feelings on the subject. Aditya _ß 06:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, but it's acceptable either way. True that consensus did not exactly favor this result, but it's still a valid close. –Juliancolton | 05:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my personal feelings really had nothing to do with my decision. I did not and do not consider it a blind maneuver on my part; I did weigh the arguments as an administrator. That said, I do not always just count the for and against votes if the deletion discussion is in any way nuanced. The largest failure, in my opinion, was not describing my rationale for the decision, and I'm sure this discussion wouldn't have happened had I did so. Or, at any rate, my judgment on the matter wouldn't have been reduced to my personal opinion. If you want to know my personal opinion, it's that it should've been deleted a long time ago per WP:DENY (denying recognition has a long history outside Misplaced Pages).
I'm happy to discuss this matter at this DRV about WP:DENY and {{historical}}, and why I don't always reach decision based solely on number of votes. But I repeat: this wasn't personal on my part. I'm not a longtime editor, and I generally agree that we should deny recognition. Xavexgoem (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Lastly, if that article is used for recognition despite the historical tag (and I'd argue that anything that hasn't been edited since 2004 is historical by default), then the WP:DENY argument certainly trumps the historical argument.

Endorse - No reason to overturn, it wasn't a overwhelming consensus to delete, I would blank it though. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 16:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- re-writing history? If it's inactive, why should WP:DENY matter? Why not keep things like they are when they're not hurting anybody? --Sigmundur (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Overturn to delete because that was the rough consensus. If the closer was tempted to overrule the consensus, he should've !voted instead of closing.—S Marshall /_Cont 19:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Endorse Last I checked WP:DENY wasn't policy, marking the page historical is what we do with pages that are inactive. Good close by admin. Whispe ring 07:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Endorse. WP:DENY is an essay, enjoys limited support and certainly does not have consensus as a deletion criterion. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Overturn to delete per rough consensus — WP:DENY is a perfectly reasonable explanation for an opinion at AfD. The keep !voters failed to argue any merit to the page, while the deleters did argue harm: I see no case to close against the numbers. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Endorse, I give more leeway towards Admin discression in MfD discussions than I do in AfD, especially when it's between historic and deleted. If this had been an admin keeping an article where the consensus was delete (like for example, if the other DRV today had been kept) I would probably have said overturn. In the end though, this is just a WP page which does no damage. In terms of DENY, I don't think this will have any measurable effect on Trolling. Replacing the page, while maintaining the history, with a redirect to the username policy seems like a fair compromise though. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 13:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Endorse as a reasonable close. I suspect I'd have closed this as 'delete' were I the admin responsible; but it is on the line and a decent argument could be made for closing it either way. ~ mazca 14:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Endorse. That was a reasonble close. The delete rationale was sound. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Considering it was closed as keep your comment seems confusing.--76.69.166.93 (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Blank content, keeping the tag, and the content in history. The majority of !voters went for "delete", although many wrongly (arguably) cited WP:DENY as mandating or justifying "delete", as blanking is arguably a preferable way to deal with such things (blanking denies recognition more effectively than staging community MfD & DRV debates). I guess that the closing admin saw this, or another weakness to the delete rationales, or recognised the vary valid point that we do and should try to avoid deleing our history. If the consensus were not for a full delete, it was certainly for a blank and mark historical, as per my & Ned's !votes, and consistent with Graham87's comments. The only other keep !votes by Stifle, and comment from Graeme Bartlett, did not specify whether the offensive content should or should not be removed from the continuing tagged page. Blanking the long usernames seems a pretty easy solution to most, and middle ground mostly satisfying everyone. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Endorse, I was a bit surprised by the decision, but it's certainly well within admin discretion. It's not worth making a fuss over. Another solution would be to actually *update* the page. Graham87 09:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Gamma_Alpha_Lambda – Deletion endorsed. – — Aitias // discussion 21:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Gamma_Alpha_Lambda (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) This sorority is a national organization with 4 current chapters in various universities. These chapters each have met the requirements set forth by their universities for a sorority. The organization is still young (6 years) which accounts for their relatively low notoriety amongst other areas of the country. However, much of their logo, sorority necklace, name, etc have been copyrighted with the U.S. government since their establishment and as they are now Gamma Alpha Lambda, Inc., they are no longer a "non-notable sorority" A full website is available to confirm information. This sorority is definitely notable and worthy of being on Misplaced Pages, especially as more chapters are added in the coming years. Gal3130 (talk) 05:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Endorse deletion. Small and not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Endorse deletion. The AfD commenters could find no reliable sources and no indication of notability, and there were no !votes to do anything except delete. A perfectly correct closure. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Endorse deletion – unanimous consensus for deletion and proper closure after relisting. MuZemike 21:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Endorse delete Completely in line with our usual practices. As you say, the group is still young & in the process of getting noticed. After it has, then there can be an article.DGG (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Endorse per DGG. In fact, I would go further and say that virtually all fraternities/sororities are non-notable. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC) ORLY? :-D -RunningOnBrains 01:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure I agree with the consensus; I think most aspects of academia have a place in a serious encyclopaedia. I certainly think there's a small benefit to including them and I don't see that they do any damage. Category:Honor societies shows that it's established custom and practice to include them. I endorse the closure as an accurate reading of the consensus, but would also support a relist because I think the debate was defective.—S Marshall /_Cont 12:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Endorse as a completely valid close of the AfD. I wouldn't go as far as Stifle and say no fraternities are notable but I see no reason for them to be notable above WP:N and sub-contant at WP:ORG, specifically WP:CLUB. Perhapps a specific mention of Greek System societies is needed in WP:CLUB, though that might be rule creep. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 13:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Gamma_Alpha_Lambda – Deletion endorsed. – — Aitias // discussion 21:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This sorority is a national organization with 4 current chapters in various universities. These chapters each have met the requirements set forth by their universities for a sorority. The organization is still young (6 years) which accounts for their relatively low notoriety amongst other areas of the country. However, much of their logo, sorority necklace, name, etc have been copyrighted with the U.S. government since their establishment and as they are now Gamma Alpha Lambda, Inc., they are no longer a "non-notable sorority" A full website is available to confirm information. This sorority is definitely notable and worthy of being on Misplaced Pages, especially as more chapters are added in the coming years. Gal3130 (talk) 05:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Endorse deletion. Small and not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Endorse deletion. The AfD commenters could find no reliable sources and no indication of notability, and there were no !votes to do anything except delete. A perfectly correct closure. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Endorse deletion – unanimous consensus for deletion and proper closure after relisting. MuZemike 21:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Endorse delete Completely in line with our usual practices. As you say, the group is still young & in the process of getting noticed. After it has, then there can be an article.DGG (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Endorse per DGG. In fact, I would go further and say that virtually all fraternities/sororities are non-notable. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- ORLY? :-D -RunningOnBrains 01:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with the consensus; I think most aspects of academia have a place in a serious encyclopaedia. I certainly think there's a small benefit to including them and I don't see that they do any damage. Category:Honor societies shows that it's established custom and practice to include them.
I endorse the closure as an accurate reading of the consensus, but would also support a relist because I think the debate was defective.—S Marshall /_Cont 12:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Endorse as a completely valid close of the AfD. I wouldn't go as far as Stifle and say no fraternities are notable but I see no reason for them to be notable above WP:N and sub-contant at WP:ORG, specifically WP:CLUB. Perhapps a specific mention of Greek System societies is needed in WP:CLUB, though that might be rule creep. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 13:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Make It Home – Not a valid premise for deletion review. Yeah, our notability guidelines are confusing and way toop obscure but thats what we use to decide inclusion criteria – Spartaz 21:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Make It Home (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) I'm protesting the deletion of the Dan Seals album Make It Home. Why is it a problem to create an article on an album that's "not notable"? I think that that's just ridiculous. I'm not only protesting the deletion of this album, but similiar albums from other artists as well. Why aren't we meant to be an encyclopedia of indiscriminate collection of information? Aren't we supposed to be creating info on many things as we can (Please note: I'm not saying that we should be allowed to create articles about ourselves and our lives, or articles about our relatives, etc., but just articles on things or people with at least some small notability, or at least articles on people or things that are at least known around a town or a city or a metropolitan area). Anyway, Make It Home was released, which means that it deserves an article. Why can't we create articles on albums just because they were self-released, released on small labels, released no singles, or that they weren't notable enough? Ryanbstevens (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC) This doesn't sound like a DRV issue. DRV is about review of the process followed for deletion, not merely disagreeing with the outcome and wishing to reargue, nor for challenging the underlying policies. If you want to attempt to change Misplaced Pages:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information or notability (the guidelines which implement the NOT policy) then starting on the talk pages of those or the village pump is your best bet. I doubt you'll gain much traction, by virtue of being an encylopedia which implies more than just raw facts, which as I understand it was the problem with the article in question. To be more than just some raw facts (a track listing) other sources would be required and they would need to meet WP:V which is realistically non-negotiable. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 15:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC) I thought that this was the place to bring it up. Ryanbstevens (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Take a read through the top of the page, particularly the what is this page for section --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC) There was a consensus to delete, so in DRV terms the answer is endorse. I see user:82.7.40.7 has already given good advice about where else the discussion could be taken... but notability's a well-established guideline. In the nominator's support, I'd say I, too, often don't understand why it's so essential to delete an article that does no harm and might help someone; the deletionist mindset often seems pointlessly destructive to me. But on Misplaced Pages you have to fight the battles you can win, and I'd suggest giving up on this one.—S Marshall /_Cont 19:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC) That's like telling soldiers to become whimps by backing down and giving up in a war. If Misplaced Pages is what it is, then we should be allowed to create articles on albums like Make It Home. What if other people found us less useful because of rules like this, and they quit using Misplaced Pages. Think about that. Ryanbstevens (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Well the answer to "If wikipedia is what it is..." is to point to what wikipedia is not which is what you want to change. You are free to ignore the advice given here and try and bring this up on the appropriate forum, but no one here has the mandate to overturn long established policy which has gained community consensus. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC) What if someone who was looking at stuff on Misplaced Pages was like "hey there's no articles on some of these albums. I thought that Misplaced Pages was useful, but since they don't have an article on this here album, i'm going to a different website, maybe they'll have an article on this album". That would mean that Misplaced Pages needs to become interested in non-notable albums, shouldn't it? Yeah, Misplaced Pages needs to be interested in non-notable albums. Ryanbstevens (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC) I don't understand. Why would it be a problem if people look for information elsewhere? --bonadea contributions talk 21:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Make It Home – Not a valid premise for deletion review. Yeah, our notability guidelines are confusing and way toop obscure but thats what we use to decide inclusion criteria – Spartaz 21:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I'm protesting the deletion of the Dan Seals album Make It Home. Why is it a problem to create an article on an album that's "not notable"? I think that that's just ridiculous. I'm not only protesting the deletion of this album, but similiar albums from other artists as well. Why aren't we meant to be an encyclopedia of indiscriminate collection of information? Aren't we supposed to be creating info on many things as we can (Please note: I'm not saying that we should be allowed to create articles about ourselves and our lives, or articles about our relatives, etc., but just articles on things or people with at least some small notability, or at least articles on people or things that are at least known around a town or a city or a metropolitan area). Anyway, Make It Home was released, which means that it deserves an article. Why can't we create articles on albums just because they were self-released, released on small labels, released no singles, or that they weren't notable enough? Ryanbstevens (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
This doesn't sound like a DRV issue. DRV is about review of the process followed for deletion, not merely disagreeing with the outcome and wishing to reargue, nor for challenging the underlying policies. If you want to attempt to change Misplaced Pages:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information or notability (the guidelines which implement the NOT policy) then starting on the talk pages of those or the village pump is your best bet. I doubt you'll gain much traction, by virtue of being an encylopedia which implies more than just raw facts, which as I understand it was the problem with the article in question. To be more than just some raw facts (a track listing) other sources would be required and they would need to meet WP:V which is realistically non-negotiable. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 15:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought that this was the place to bring it up. Ryanbstevens (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Take a read through the top of the page, particularly the what is this page for section --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
There was a consensus to delete, so in DRV terms the answer is endorse. I see user:82.7.40.7 has already given good advice about where else the discussion could be taken... but notability's a well-established guideline.
In the nominator's support, I'd say I, too, often don't understand why it's so essential to delete an article that does no harm and might help someone; the deletionist mindset often seems pointlessly destructive to me. But on Misplaced Pages you have to fight the battles you can win, and I'd suggest giving up on this one.—S Marshall /_Cont 19:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That's like telling soldiers to become whimps by backing down and giving up in a war. If Misplaced Pages is what it is, then we should be allowed to create articles on albums like Make It Home. What if other people found us less useful because of rules like this, and they quit using Misplaced Pages. Think about that. Ryanbstevens (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Well the answer to "If wikipedia is what it is..." is to point to what wikipedia is not which is what you want to change. You are free to ignore the advice given here and try and bring this up on the appropriate forum, but no one here has the mandate to overturn long established policy which has gained community consensus. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

What if someone who was looking at stuff on Misplaced Pages was like "hey there's no articles on some of these albums. I thought that Misplaced Pages was useful, but since they don't have an article on this here album, i'm going to a different website, maybe they'll have an article on this album". That would mean that Misplaced Pages needs to become interested in non-notable albums, shouldn't it? Yeah, Misplaced Pages needs to be interested in non-notable albums. Ryanbstevens (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. Why would it be a problem if people look for information elsewhere? --bonadea contributions talk 21:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.