Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Deletion Review)
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcuts:
This page deals with the Deletion discussion process. For articles deleted via the "Proposed Deletion" ("PROD") process, or simple image undeletions, please post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
"WP:DELREV" redirects here. For Revision Delete, see WP:REVDEL.

Administrator instructions

Deletion Review (DRV) is a forum designed primarily to appeal disputed speedy deletions and disputed decisions made as a result of deletion discussions; this includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.

Purpose[edit]

Shortcut:

Deletion Review may be used:

  1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
  2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
  3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
  4. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
  5. if there was a substantive procedural error(s) in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.

Deletion Review should not be used:

  1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment;
  2. when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination;
  3. to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
  4. to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
  5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
  6. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
  7. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
  8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed); or

Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.

Shortcut:

Instructions[edit]

Before listing a review request, please:

  1. discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review. See #Purpose.
  2. please check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Commenting in a deletion review[edit]

In the deletion review discussion, please:

  • Endorse the original closing decision; or
  • Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
  • List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
  • Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
  • Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.

Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.

Temporary undeletion[edit]

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by non-admins. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews[edit]

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate. Deletion review discussions may also be extended by relisting them to the newest DRV log page, if the closing admin thinks that consensus may yet be achieved by more discussion.

Steps to list a new deletion review[edit]

 
1.

Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the closing admin as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page.

2.

Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|reason=
}} ~~~~

Copy this template skeleton for files:

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|article=
|reason=
}} ~~~~
3.

Follow this link to today's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the deleted page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the page should be undeleted. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example:

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
4.

Inform the administrator who deleted the page by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
5.

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

6.

Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion. Use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2015 May 5}}</noinclude>, if the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, and use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2015 May 5|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>, if the deletion discussion's subpage name is different than the deletion review's section header:

 


Active discussions[edit]

5 May 2015[edit]

4 May 2015[edit]

Maxim Stoyalov[edit]

Maxim Stoyalov (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

1 + movies Dead Rising: Watchtower as Zombies, The Burning Dead as Zombies, Juarez 2045. + 234 51 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 Half-Life (2011) 23[1]3Film Review: 'The Hope Factory'. 3 4 Red Square Screenings< Maxim Stoyalov 4 5 [2]. Stoyalov5 67</ref> 8 1 2 3 4 56. 1 2 1 7, 8. 100bestmovies 9 10kino-likbez< Stoyalov Maxim Stoyalov1234 [1]

2 May 2015[edit]

Brad Kroenig[edit]

Brad Kroenig (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

He is a american male model known by the international media. Sources abound to prove his existence and the work he did. I do not understand why the page was deleted three times without ever having had a formal discussion. I want the page to be restored in order to correct the mistakes that caused the deletion. The following sources: [3] [4] [5] [6][7] [8] [9] Brenhunk (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

  • It would probably be a simpler solution if you just ask for it to be unprotected so you can create an article about him including your sources. The absence of evidence was the mail problem with the deleted versions and it was a long time ago too. Deb (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Unprotect and Restore if there is anything of any substance. I don't see how an expired prod ends up being a reason to protect. The sources here aren't the most impressive in the world being largely lifestyle type pieces (the first two aren't of this ilk, but I don't think are that usable the first being apparently based on "self" submitted data), but there are a few of them and enough to give an article a go. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 08:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)updated based on Hut 8.5 below ---86.2.216.5 (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not sure if you looked at the logs for the page, but it's clear that the salting was carried out because the article had been created three times within a short period. Deb (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
    Yes I looked at the logs, created 3 times in 18 months, the last one presumably didn't qualify for speedy deletion. The last deletion was an expired PROD, which can be challenged at anytime including after it's been deleted and results in the article not being deleted, no questions asked. I'd say 3 times in 18 months on it's own is hardly a problem worthy of salting, and given the final deletion can't see it as appropriate. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, I've lifted the protection so it should be possible to recreate it now. Deb (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't restore the deleted version, it appears to be a copyright violation. It certainly sounded like a press release and the text can be found (word for word) in this. Since the article only existed for about a week in 2008 I don't think that link got the text from Wikipedia. This applies both to the PRODed version and the version deleted using A7. The version deleted in 2006 didn't contain any usable content, it just said "Brad Kroenig is an American supermodel". No objection to having an article at this title if someone can write a properly sourced version but we shouldn't be restoring the deleted versions. Hut 8.5 06:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Reply. I want to thank you for your help. Only unlock the article is already good for me, what was done. Is possible finish the discussion now? I need the conclusion of the discussion to start the new article. Thank you. Brenhunk (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


Recent discussions[edit]

27 April 2015[edit]

List of state and local political scandals in the United States[edit]

List of state and local political scandals in the United States (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
List of state and local political sex scandals in the United States (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am requesting the deletion of List of state and local political scandals in the United States and List of state and local political sex scandals in the United States be overturned.

The reasons given for the original deletion by the nominating editor were;

*Per WP:BLP, "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Many of these entries are supported by only one reliable source. The actual WP:BLP policy quote is, “If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs IN THE ARTICLE – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.” ALSO “All BLPs created after March 18, 2010 must have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person IN THE ARTICLE.” – Clearly these WP:BLP policies refer to using ‘multiple sources in the entire ARTICLE. A list however, has only one or two sentences per citation. I can find very other few articles that have multiple references per sentence and no other articles which consistently adhere to multiple sources per line. One sentence, one source, is de facto wiki policy, to which this article adheres. *Per WP:BLP, “If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." This list not only omits denials, but also omits acquittals, which is really unacceptable. - The nominating editor has not listed the offending allegation. I believe the single offending citation he refers to is a case in which the politician was accused, arrested, indicted and then resigned. He was then convicted. Years later, his case went to the Supreme Court where it was overturned. He is therefore innocent and yes, this one item should be removed from the list or kept with explanation. This is a case of a dated entry, not a cause for systemic deletion of the entire article. The presumption of innocence is so prevalent in the US that to re-iterate it time and time again for every citation in a list would unnecessarily expand length of the article. If necessary, a single sentence added to the lead paragraph would suffice. *Per WP:BLP, "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law….Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association…. "Here, accused and acquitted people are mixed in with convicted criminals, which is guilt by association. -I couldn’t find this policy and don’t see how it applies as stated. This is a list of SCANDALS, not convictions. Further, every person listed has his own citation and his own reliably sourced reference. Guilt is never implied. *Per WP:LISTN, I don’t see that “state and local political scandals in the United States” are notable as a group. - This is an opinion by the nominating editor, not a statement of Wikipedia policy. WP:LISTN redirects to Wikipedia:Notability/Stand-alone lists, which states, “The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.” I would say that “lists”, “states”, “politicians” and “scandals” are all notable groups and have been treated in Wikipedia extensively. *The list is prone to being outdated, and thus an unintentional BLP violation simply by the passage of time. - This is another opinion by the nominating editor. No Wiki policy is mentioned and I could find none at WP:BLP. An unintentional BLP violation deserves correction of the offending item, not deletion of the entire article. Further, I would ask what Wiki article is NOT affected by time? Are old articles worse than new ones? Are old subjects less important than current ones? This editor is grabbing for it. *The main aim here is apparently to connect persons with crimes, or imply that they are guilty of crimes, for which they were not convicted. - Another opinion. Again no Wiki policy is mentioned. This article only reports that the politician was charged, indicted and arrested, ousted or resigned. The definition of a scandal is “an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage.” Given the number of Wiki articles about Benghazi, Whitewater, Lewinsky etc, this list is certainly within Wikipedia guidelines.

  • WP:NPF applies to some of these named people who are not public figures.

I quote WP:BLP/People who are relatively unknown, “Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. “ – And that is exactly what has been done. According to the eligibility criterion in the lead paragraph, only politicians, their appointees and staff may be included and only referenced information about each such person maybe been used. *WP:Recentism is violated (scandals from this millennium are given undue weight) - Huh? Scandals from this millennium are given more weight only because there are more of them. Does he really expect that scandals in the 13 colonies would equal those of the 21st century? Again I quote WP:Recentism, “Recentism is a symptom of Wikipedia's dynamic and immediate editorial process, and has positive aspects as well—up-to-date information on breaking news events, vetted and counter-vetted by enthusiastic volunteer editors, is something that no other encyclopedia can offer.” This is not even close to a problem.

  • Unencylopedic.

- Once again I quote from WP:Unencyclopedic/Just unencyclopedic, “Saying something is "encyclopedic" or "unencyclopedic" are empty arguments. Unencyclopedic means "not worthy of being included in an encyclopedia", which is synonymous with "should not be included" or "I want it deleted". So when you use it as a justification for deleting something, it's a circular argument: "Delete, because it should be deleted". This is just repeating yourself.” So the nominating editor is again referring to a policy of which there is no violation, as stated by the very policy to which he is referring.

I believe the original deleting editors were not concise enough in tracking Wiki policy and were swayed by the large number of deleting votes. Puppetry is not new to these articles. I should also note that the parent article List of federal political scandals in the United States originated in 28 January 2004‎ and was nominated for deletion on 26 November 2010. The result was delete, overturned at DRV to KEEP. That list and this, List of state and local political scandals in the United States are nearly identical in scope and execution. Both should be kept. For these reasons I would ask the deletion of List of state and local political scandals in the United States and List of state and local political sex scandals in the United States (which was deleted for the same reasons) to be overturned.Polarpark (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Permit reconsideration with a change of title There would I think be no objection to a list of "List of local and state officials in the US convicted of ...." The more important question is whether we would include a list including those never tried or even acquitted if there were a suitable title , like "List of .... accused .... " Normally ,some BLP consideration apply with considerably less force to elected officials, because matters that would not be relevant for private individuals or even individuals in other types of activities are relevant here, because the necessity for voter trust is relevant to their careers. Even the totally false accusation of a politician could be notable enough for a separate article, though we would need to be very careful with the title. It would certainly be notable enough to be included in their bio. But would it be of sufficient importance to e given the added prominence of a list? This is a very difficult question, and I'm not sure about it. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse my close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of state and local political sex scandals in the United States (no comment on the other AFD listed here).

    It's always a pretty tall order to ask that a unanimous WP:CONSENSUS in such a well-participated AFD should be disregarded, and here Polarpark has basically just disagreed with the outcome and the commenters' reasonable interpretations of policy. Even if you are not inclined to take the AFD commenters at their word, the content of the list itself was a hodgepodge of some mere allegations and some convictions, some actual crimes and a lot of mere infidelity, and little substance offered to establish that there was actually a "scandal" as opposed to merely "this happened" or "this was alleged". Perhaps most importantly, none of the purported scandals themselves have articles (contra the federal scandal list offered for comparison above). And the sourcing was mostly, if not entirely, from mere news stories. All of this together supports that the unanimous deletion consensus reached in the AFD was completely reasonable and addressed to unfixable problems in the very conception of the list. I could not have closed it as anything other than delete, nor is there a basis presented here for overturning that now.

    (note at the time of this posting that notices of this DRV have not been placed on either AFD.) postdlf (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Endorse The problem with these lists is that we are left with nothing more than a bunch of wholly negative mini-bios, often for subjects about whom we would never even consider having a full article because they fail one guideline or another. If there was a way to enforce the addition of only bluelinks to them then I'd be OK with them, but there isn't a way to do that - the editors who insist on us hosting these don't want that, and certainly the people who add the latest municipal scandal du jour (often in bad faith) to them don't either. And of course we're all about adding stuff to them but in the long run we're provably incapable of curating them correctly and following up when the facts for a given entry have changed (unless of course they write screaming to OTRS or show up trying to fix them and are often blocked for vandalism because they have no idea how to do it correctly). These are collections of little BLP nightmares in the making and they should be kept off the encyclopedia. If a person is notable then they should have a bio; if the scandal is notable then it should have an article. We should not have lists that get around those two restrictions. In any case the consensus in the AFD was clear and the admin's close appropriate. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse as a fair assessment of the consensus. I agree there are many problems with the nominating statement but the purpose of DRV is to examine the closing, not the opening. Thincat (talk) 07:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I see a second AFD was nominated but I shall endorse that one as well. I can't see anything remotely wrong with that close. Thincat (talk) 07:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse both; closer has followed deletion process correctly. DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse- no reasonable administrator could have closed that any other way. DRV is not a second go at AfD. Reyk YO! 09:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I think it's trivial to endorse those two closes on the basis that they're in accordance with the consensus, and we should probably just take that as read. But there's a more interesting discussion to be had about their relationship to the List of federal political scandals in the United States and List of federal political sex scandals in the United States, and indeed to List of Australian political controversies, List of political scandals in the United Kingdom, and their equivalents in other countries. On the basis of the views we're hearing here, it may be that Wikipedia no longer wants these lists at all. Perhaps a RfC?—S Marshall T/C 11:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
    • When you get to the federal level, many of the scandals themselves have articles (e.g., contents of Category:Political scandals in the United States), and the politicians' degree of notability is much greater as well. There is also much less question in that context as to whether something is properly termed a "scandal" with such things as Teapot Dome Scandal; that's how every history book refers to it. So I think there's much to separate the deleted lists from the ones we still have, though there may be a call for discussion on appropriate theshold for including something in a list (must have its own article, must rely on more than contemporary news, etc.) or on whether "political sex scandal" is ever a meaningful label. postdlf (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse - Filer has wasted everyone's time by re-arguing the debate rather than any attempt to point out administrator mistakes or misconduct. ("I disagree with the reasons he/she cited to close the discussion isn't valid). Tarc (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse, there was no other possible way to close this discussion. The nominator seems to want a second round of AFD, but that's not what this process is about. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC).
  • Endorse I like the concept and spirit behind this article, as calling out politicians on their "Do as I say, not as I do" ways is important in a democracy. But the close of the AFD looks to have been reasonable, and DRV is not a 2nd round of AFD. And the scope of the article is ridiculously broad, by including local offices and including accusations that don't lead to a conviction. So, as I read it, if someone on the East Podunk town council gets pulled over for speeding, it would be within the scope of the article. To use an example, a list of major sports injuries which ended the careers of prominent pro athletes might make a good article subject, but extending the list to include every time a little-leaguer needed a Band-Aid is just silly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse The afd had clear consensus to delete. Deletion review is for when the closer's assessment is improper or inaccurate, not for when one party dislikes that consensus did not go his way. I would also note that the DELREV requester failed to notify interested parties by placing the deletion review notice at the top of the AfD, though this DELREV clearly doesn't need their help. Participants in the AfD have now been alerted (on May 3rd) to this deletion review. ― Padenton|   16:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Something else the nominator did not do is make clearly that he was listing two AFDs for review. I've fixed the formatting above, and have also now added a notice to the second discussion, something I pointed out was lacking several days ago; apparently the nominator didn't care enough about this discussion to actually follow it. It's especially disappointing given that I reminded him in response to his comment on my talk page about this to make sure he had proper links to the discussion, and someone even had to fix the wikilinks he didn't post correctly here in the first place.[10] postdlf (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Water to the Soul[edit]

Water to the Soul (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

After people recommended that Water to the Soul be deleted, I added a great deal of information to the article indicating that "Innocent Child" received substantial airplay, which I vaguely remember hearing back in the day. Only one comment, indicating that the album article DID INDEED go beyond a track listing, was instated AFTER the relisting. Jax 0677 (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Endorse My own close. The redirection was a kindness in my opinion, perhaps in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE by the participants, and there was obvious consensus for it in the discussion. Because it's important to point out that we have no article for the group that performed this, or even for the album. For all practical purposes this should have been an A9. As far as re-creation, as far as I can see nothing added by the requester between the start and end of the AFD rises to the level of notability required by WP:NSONGS WP:NALBUMS. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Striking one bit in my comment, I'm not sure why I decided that this was an article about a song. WP:NALBUMS still applies regardless, and we have no article about the band. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure as reasonable. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Relist or Allow recreation - The statements are not quite accurate. We did have an article for the album until it got redirected. We do not need to satisfy WP:NSONG for an article about an album. Writing about a song in an article about an album is what is referred to as a "top down approach". Artists articles write about original albums and songs by the artist all of the time, therefore, an album article may write about a song if it so chooses. An album article simply needs to be more than a track listing, which it was, and a song article needs to be more than a stub, and more than a description about the music video. --Jax 0677 (talk) 08:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
    • We already know by virtue of your listing that you want the decision changed. You don't get a second bolded !vote on top. Stifle (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Relist - allow an admin who isn't imposing their preferred outcome (as FreeRangeFrog's endorsing of their own close is an admission of) is necessary. WilyD 09:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I have to call this out. An admin endorsing their own closure is not "imposing their preferred outcome", they're expressing their opinion, which they and every other Wikipedian is entitled to do, that the decision was fair and appropriate. If the admin did not endorse their own closure, it would imply that they had changed their mind since closing the discussion. Endorsing one's own closure is merely confirming that one's opinion has not changed. Stifle (talk) 07:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse - The consensus of the discussion was to redirect, that is not in doubt. The single charted, not the album, so no, the album does not and cannot inherit notability from the song. That's not the way it works. It is unusual to have a (possibly) notable song with no article for the album or the name of the Colorhaus duo who performed it though. Why not spend time expanding Sherrié Austin#Early career, which is only 5 sentences atm, with this material rather than struggling over marginally-notable standalone content? Tarc (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Reply - AFD is not a vote. With the information regarding the airplay of "Innocent Child" combined with the reviews portrayed, the album article does indeed go beyond a track listing, and has significant length. If a song on an album is discussed, or multiple songs on an article are discussed, then the album is in effect being discussed via its parts. The question I ask is, Why was the AFD relisted?, and How do the comments of one user after the relisting constitute a reaching of consensus? There are articles about musicians with notable songs, that may not have song or even album articles, but may talk about the compositions in the articles, for the sake of a top down approach. The charting of albums or songs can determine the very notability of a musician or ensemble. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The album didn't chart. WP:NALBUM is out the window for consideration, so you have to go for the plain ol' WP:GNG to get by. If you could find one more source on-par with the Spin review, IMO you'd be all set. And no, allmusic.com doesn't cut it. Tarc (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Reply -Actually, per WP:NALBUMS, "The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart" and "The recording was in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network". Per Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Resources, "Good online sources for recordings are the Freedb search engine or the Allmusic search engine". --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, note the use of "or" there; the notability criteria applies to singles as well as albums. You're suggesting that a notable single confers notability on the album on which it appears, which is not true. As for allmusic.com, that mention is to note allmusic's usability as a resource/reference for factual material...track info, dates, etc... A review at allmusic.com does not count towards notability, any more than a listing in imbd.com counts for notability for a film or tv show. Tarc (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Reply - Your comment still does not address "The recording was in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network". If the word "or" applies, then the single from the album could potentially be used to determine the notability of the album. Also, there is nothing that says that the AllMusic review does not contribute to notability. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse Even with expansion, the article fails to share any details about the album which establishes its independent notability. A redirect outcome seems reasonable. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Reply - An album is a collection of songs, one of which was notable and played on radio frequently. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse- there was a rough consensus to redirect the article, and that's how the discussion was closed. No problems here. Reyk YO! 07:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Reply - "Rough consensus" is equivalent to "No Consensus". --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • No, it isn't. It's between "slight leaning" and "unanimity" on the consensus scale, and well and truly enough for a closer to make a decision. Reyk YO! 18:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse. The artist does not have an article and never will. WP:NALBUM is not set in stone. I have had several experiences with Jax 0677 in the past, and they are a very tenatious editor who refuses to let anything of their creation be deleted, no matter how many other people tell them that it's not worth keeping. I see them doing this mostly in TFD, where they will argue that a template with only one link in it should be kept because it will be more useful for navigation in the future. Jax really needs to drop the stick and quit being overly defensive of their creations. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 02:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Reply - If "WP:NALBUM is not set in stone", then a ground to delete must still be made. I allowed Template:Sammi Cheng (which at one time had dozens of articles) to go through unabated (after the articles were all redirected). Other templates that I have argued to keep have had at least five total links, never that I can remember have they had one link. Template:Kip Moore was deleted, but was created again months later. The article is lengthy with two reviews and a composition section. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

26 April 2015[edit]

24 April 2015[edit]

23 April 2015[edit]

Archive[edit]

2015
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2014
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2013
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2012
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2011
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2010
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2009
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2008
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2007
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2006
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
  1. ^ ATM 1 2 3 4 Maxim Stoyalov 1 2 3
    • Deletion was several years ago and speedy; just recreate it. ~~~~