- Ice Age (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)— (AfD)
There was a clear consensus on the AfD to Keep. There are no allegations of sock-puppets or bad faith votes. When queried the deleting admin cited WP:MUSIC but Prolog's argument in the AfD was that they meet criteria number 5 of that guideline and it seems to have been accepted by other participants. Eluchil404 11:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are all perfectly good arguments for deletion, but not for ignoring a clear consensus (as oppossed to say a bare majority) in favor of keeping an article. An admin's role in closing an AfD is primarily to carry out the will of the community not to make an independent assesment of notability. Eluchil404 11:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a democracy. See WP:NOT. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 11:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. WP:MUSIC #5: "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." Independent label? Check. History of more than a few years? Check. Roster of notable performers? Check. Four of the keep votes are based in the guideline, so this is more than open and shut. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My personal scoring is 1-0 delete. Chris cheese whine 12:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As scary as that little page is, using your chart I get 1.5/.5 to keep. What gives? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you get 1.5 for keep? Nomination scores .5, first comment appears to be a "keep" vote with a "delete" argument, .5 (this method scores arguments, not votes, for very good reason, "POV, and also bad" is clearly not a "keep" argument). As for the rest, one says "doesn't meet A7", with a link that doesn't prove much; one says "look, they're on AMG" even though being on AMG is not an indicator; one says "international recognition" with no indication of such; and one "me too" to the other three - all of which score 0, hence it too scores 0 (even though only one "me too" only ever scores 0 anyway). At worst, it's 0.5/0, which at best suggests a relist. That said, the result certainly looks questionable, and the administrator certainly should have explained his reasoning for the delete close when doing it. I'm sat squarely on the fence with this one. Chris cheese whine 12:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you asked, .5 for a keep argument based in policy/guideline, right? We've got three of those. I put .5 due to the nom. Whatever, it's all silly, but this clearly shouldn't have been deleted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Two questions. Why is the nom (a bare unevidenced argument "not notable") scored .5 but similar arguments in the comments scored 0? And why does the comment by Prolog which clearly tracks WP:MUSIC#5 though it doesn't actually link the guideline not count as a policy based keep? Eluchil404 13:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I allow the nominator a bit of latitude, and assume they have at least done some thinking before proposing deletion. I see "non-notable" as the reason for nomination, I assume they have at least checked, and read this as "having done some research, it appears this entity is non-notable". For everyone else, "Delete, non-notable" in the debate scores zero. Zero for the nominator is reserved for clear-cut cases of ignorance, bad faith. Given that neither side manages a full point, and the nomination was particularly weak, with only a half-dozen having participated in the debate my temptation is to say "no consensus" and suggest a relist. Chris cheese whine 15:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn, undelete. What's wrong with "assuming mistake" or "assuming difference of opinion"? But anyway, two full-length albums on arguably notable label, two reviews in the article (as far as I'm concerned when it comes to music, websites, assuming they're not Blogspots, Tripods, Geocities etc, can be considered reliable unless someone has a good reason otherwise), I don't see any reason for the closing admin's decision. He certainly didn't give one when closing the AfD. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As I have said before, most of the Google links are to weblogs. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 12:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn, do not re-list. No valid rationale for deleting the article. Nomination made by what appears to be a deletionist role account/sockpuppet. — CharlotteWebb 12:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- do not relist is not a valid option. All articles undeleted as a result of the DRV process must be relisted. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Seriously nothing that I have seen on DRV or the undeletion policy says that relisting is mandatory. It is usual but if deetion is clearly improper not necessary. In this case I have no opinion as to whether or not the article should be relisted but it is simply innacurate to say that it is a given. See [2] [3] etc. Eluchil404 05:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Deleted - this article has made no assertion of its notability, as per CSD A7. Not to mention it was a blatant puff piece. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 12:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The assertion of notability was definitely made in the AfD persuant to our guidelines, even if it didn't make it into the article proper at the time (although, given the existence of the two albums on the label, the information on the albums at the page should have been enough). It was not speedied, and this would have been a valid challenge to that speedy if that were case. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist, try to establish a more firm consensus one way or the other. Examining whether Magna Carta Records meets the notability guidelines might be a good idea, since most of the keep arguments on this article's AfD hinged on the fact that the band was signed to that label. --Slowking Man 12:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Magna Carta Records has JUST had new information added (not present at the time of the close) that suggests it is indeed a label of some note. (Kansas (band) is a major group, any label that does their albums is thus a major label) In reviewing the band article as it was at the time of the close, and the label article as it was at the time of the close, and the arguments presented in the AfD, I think NhNick acted reasonably. We judge consensus, yes, but it's not nose counting, it's weighing the arguments. The keep arguments were weak and not very well founded. When one goes against the numerics, it often is good to present as detailed a rationale as one can. I think Nick could have given a much better rationale for his decision (something I've been dinged for in the past as well) but he wasn't wrong in the decision itself. The article authors (and the MCR article authors) did a disservice by not including the info that would establish notability.. . we cannot expect closing admins to chase references down 3 layers to see if maybe some OTHER article is notable but not properly set up. SO... I think it was a good AfD but nevertheless in light of the new information Overturn no relist ++Lar: t/c 13:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn without prejudice to closer: indeed the article on Magna Carta Records was sadly lacking when it came to establishing that it is indeed a well-recognised label. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn per Phil Boswell; notability of Magna Carta Records has been established and expanded. FTR I voted Keep in the original AfD for this band. Chubbles 22:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Before giving my rationale for deletion, I must assure all the users that I will not take any decision upon the closure of this DRV personally. I believe I did my homework, but I regret not making comments while closing the AfD. My rationale for deletion is as follows –
- My deletion was based on the non-significance of Magna Carta records – [4]. Less than 17,000 google hits. Notable enough to have an article on the encyclopedia, but not enough to be counted among the majors.
- Kudos to Phil for expanding that article a bit, but a few more lines and a few well-known artists does not a "label" make. (atleast not a significant one).
- Less than 90 hits for the Ice Age band when you google it – [5] and [6] (less than 60 here); and one of the first links to come up is from Wikipedia; and the other links are to forums and discussion websites.
- Absolutely non-notable, in my opinion.
- Independent label? Yes. That's all correct as per the guideline; but is the band notable? Absolutely not.
- I have recreated the article here for those who would like to have a look again; and you will see the lack of solid references and external links. Cheers. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 05:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is that WP:MUSIC maps out exactly how we can deduce if a label is important or not, one of which involves other notable acts. That was more than demonstrated. You may disagree with that part, but it's there. Thus, the band is notable based on our already too tight guidelines, using the logic we as a community have created by consensus. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you had a look at the article I re-created for your convenience? Read the article carefully, its a POV-laden advertisement which goes against WP:NOT#SOAP. There is a reason why WP:NOT is a policy and WP:MUSIC is a guideline. The references are from what look like blog sources; the article itself was a puffed up piece of cruft ridden with redlinks (read WP:RS and WP:V). Another reason why Wikipedia is not the tyranny of majority . Where are you going to get the sources and proper references for the article? Weblogs? Geocities? Online gossip forums? — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 10:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Deleted - Look at what google shows, all I see is 83 hits, mostly from Wikipedia mirrors. That, in my opinion, is bog all notability. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 06:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist, as there does not seem to be a consensus.--Fuuchild 06:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist It might lose more fairly this time.--T. Anthony 13:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and Relist per T. Anthony. I couldn't state it better myself. Let the community have a second crack at it. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 16:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn per phil boswell please do not relist this one Yuckfoo 22:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist, we still need to determine other factors which mitigate its' inclusion, such as WP:V, WP:OR etc., as well as clarify WP:MUSIC's provisions. However, given the above evidence of notability (which, in my honest opinion, extends it past a CSD), weak overturn. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 05:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn, per Phil. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 08:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist. I would have personally given a "delete" for the article concerned (fails inclusion criteria as RS not present, and nothing shows up on Google search), but seems that deletion was closed without all opinions pouring in. To give more time for the community to assess the notability of the article, I think relisting would be best. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist Although I would normally propose "Delete" as well, as the original article had a very advert tone, see cached copy at Answers.com - e.g.,
The band members' talents deserve to be individually recognized, as each is a noted master of their respective instrument...
- Endless blue 22:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
|
