Talk:Hollie (album)

Rescue tag

Album is due out in less than a month. Article needs sources; can be found at Hollie Steel. I would, but no time today. Radiopathy •talk• 20:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

But I have added a source about the release date...Mohamed Magdy (talk)

The album will be out in May, so plenty of time to add sources. There are plenty of sources that can be found at http://www.holliesteel.org.uk, her official website. Hassaan19 (talk) 11:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I favour keeping the article, and I don't want the folks at AfD to have cause to !vote for deletion beyond WP:CRYSTAL. If I had more time, I do the refs myself. Radiopathy •talk• 17:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the reason this discussion is here is because I placed the Rescue tag on this article, and one is required to provide a rationale for doing so. This is not about "ref tagging" someone to death. Radiopathy •talk• 00:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

The result of the AfD appeared to be no consensus to delete. We need to improve the article by adding more sources, information, etc. Also if anyone knows the length and writers of the songs, please add them. Hassaan19 (talk) 12:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge

I suggest we delete this article, or import the contents of Hollie (album) here and delete that one. The other article's content is more concise. Radiopathy •talk• 22:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

There clearly should not be two articles about the same thing. This is the "original" article and the significant article history is here; there doesn't seem to be anything of significance in the newer article worth merging in so I suggest removal of Hollie (album). (db-a10 may apply; it depends on how you interpret "recent".) I42 (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; the refs are here already and it is the first article on the topic. Radiopathy •talk• 23:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I have tagged Hollie (album) db-a10. If/when it is deleted I suggest this page be renamed Hollie (album); Hollie should really be a dab page for this album and other articles on people named Hollie. I42 (talk) 10:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources for track listing

Could you please stop revert-warring and actually discuss this? I have protected the article for two days; this does not endorse the current version of the page, it is merely so that the edit warring stops. I will, however, point out that these links have been removed on the basis of the guidelines on external links, but please note that that "guideline does not apply to inline citations or general references, which should appear in the "References" or "Notes" section", and so is not important here. J Milburn (talk) 10:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to all interested persons. I believe my citations I added to the article to support my edits of the track listing should not be deleted by another editor. After being deleted twice by this editor, Radiopathy; I added a "citation needed" to the article which Radiopathy deleted with no explanation. The citations I used to support my edits which consisted of listing the songs in the order they appear on the cd are the following:

• http://www.townsend-records.co.uk/stores/holliesteel/index.php?cur=GBP
• http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=8202573&style=classical&cart=1075712474

Here is a better source which also gives the length of the individual tracks, I think this link because of that info which is lacking on the two pages which I used for my edits is preferable:

• http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003JXZAKK/ref=dm_sp_alb?ie=UTF8&qid=1283439395&sr=8-1-fkmr1

Please check out the above links and weigh in.1archie99 (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You cannot link to an online store. Full stop. Regardless of what Milburn believes. Radiopathy •talk• 19:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

P. S. I doubt that the track listing will be challenged anyway. Radiopathy •talk• 20:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Note the link I gave. The guideline you cited explicitly notes that it does not apply to this situation. If you still feel that it's not appropriate, that's fine, but citing that guideline as evidence is going to get you nowhere. J Milburn (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any other objections? J Milburn (talk) 10:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You cannot link to an online store, even as a ref. It won't stand, regardless of what you choose to believe. Radiopathy •talk• 20:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I've never had any objection against it at FAC. Yes, they do not make good external links (which is the whole point of the guideline you were citing) but what makes you so certain they should not be used as references? They sound like (fairly) good references for some kinds of information- for instance, for tracklisting. You can't just sit there and make assertions backed up by nothing and expect people to take you seriously. J Milburn (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Here, read, from WP:ELNO #5: "Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. For example, the mobile phone article does not link to web pages that mostly promote or advertise cell-phone products or services." You need to go back to NFCC, except that you don't understand that, either. Radiopathy •talk• 21:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

And, like I have said, please note that [t]his guideline does not apply to inline citations or general references, which should appear in the "References" or "Notes" section". Try again... J Milburn (talk)

Yes, WP:ELPOINTS says what we already know, WP:EL has nothing to do with WP:RS, they're not the same topic, a citation is not an external link and a URL carried within a citation is not an external link. Lacking another source, a citation to a sales page is ok for verifiable content, so long as the reader is made aware as to where it came from. I also said something about this here. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)