|
Xymmax
So let it be written
So let it be done
16:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
My Life Would Suck Without You (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) (
restore |
cache |
AfD))
Wikipedians are encouraged to be bold in creating previously deleted articles. Today this article has been deleted by
User:JzG giving the reason as
WP:CSD#G4. The reason given surely can no longer be used as (at the time of deletion) there were several Wikipedians editing the article to improve it and bring it up to standard. I did try to take this up with the admin involved, but he would not enter into a discussion on the problem and just told me to come here. So I have.
jenuk1985 (
talk)
21:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Restore:This is RIDICULOUS. It has charted on this weeks Hot 100 (#97) based on Airplay alone, and is currently number 1 on iTunes. Give it a page already. 18:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Restore: Until about an hour ago I had nothing to do with this article or its old AFD. But this should not have been speedied this time around. It was properly deleted a month ago as CRYSTAL, but that is no longer the case and it had (until speedied) moved close to passing
WP:N, and with a little more work, likely passed by the end of the day. To spell that out, that means it failed G4. By forcing this here, it just wastes more time. I personally hate American Idol and its products such as the singer of this song, but it passes our inclusion criteria.
Aboutmovies (
talk)
22:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Restore As above, I had no part in this article, but it appears to have become victim of an over-zealous admin.
jenuk1985 (
talk)
22:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- The song was released online this weekend and on the radio yesterday. Considering the buzz that the song has generated and the prominence of the artist, I think that it's a foregone conclusion that the song will chart within a matter of days. I think invoking
UCS is appropriate enough to overturn deletion.
caknuck
° resolves to be more caknuck-y
22:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comment It is only likely to be created again in a few days when it meets the technicalities
jenuk1985 (
talk)
22:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn Previous deletion concerns of
WP:CRYSTAL and lack of coverage to establish notability are no longer relevant with the recreated article showing significant coverage to establish notability. There is also more coverage easily available
on a quick search. The article was thus not stubstantially the same as the deleted article and much of the concenrs raised in the AFD have now been addressed, so it therefore did not meet the G4 speedy criteria.
Davewild (
talk)
22:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Wait If it will surely chart in a few days, then wait a few days. Go to
WP:RFPP, link to the AFD that decided to wait until it charts, a link to the chart, and as for the creation to be unprotected. All will go smoothly. There's no rush to create this article before it satisfies the normal guideline of charting, receiving an award, or being covered by multiple artists. Doing things in order makes life smoother for everyone and everything, and part of doing things in order is to discuss a song in the article of its parent album or artist, and then split if off when there is sufficient reason to do so. Nothing's preventing anyone from doing anything ... write text about it, find sources, make an infobox. It's just normal to do that in the parent article for an uncharted single.—
Kww(
talk)
22:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: That assumes there is a requirement for "charting" and the like. There is not. That's one way to get included, but it is not exclusive. Thus, even in the absence of charting, it is notable.
Aboutmovies (
talk)
22:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comment As well as noting the common sense aspect, there is no reason why
Ignore all rules can't apply to this situation of pedantry. Notability has been established outside the normal means, it doesn't make it non-notable.
jenuk1985 (
talk)
22:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comment How come the admins aren't so quick to delete the current incarnation of the page?
jenuk1985 (
talk)
23:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: The article has been recreated by users not involved with the original dispute, I have tried to make these "new" uses aware of what is going on to no avail. As much as I disagree with the situation, I reverted the article to the redirect twice, but I can do so no more without being in breach of 3RR
jenuk1985 (
talk)
23:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Restore I took part in trying to make this article happen because it is a single that was released in Radio Airplay as well as on the iTunes Market. The ludicrous idea that a Single cannot have a page made for it because "it hasn't charted yet." There are many singles out there that don't chart but still deserve to have a page made for them because they are released by the artist. It should have nothing to with if its charted yet or not but provide the history of the song as well as facts revolving around the song. This is after all wikipedia and encyclopedia entitling all that relates with any bit of information out there in the world with relevance. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.210.84.39 (
talk)
23:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Restore. The article is being re-created already by users not involved in the above debate. It seems this will continue to happen. This song is not only notable, but the amount of traffic the article is receiving further illustrates the desire to create and expand the article. Please restore the version delete earlier this morning so users can improve the article. Thanks! -
Whataworld06 (
talk)
00:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Restore per, well, everyone. It's a leadoff single from an album by a well known artist. I have to note, though, that this is the worst song title for a single ever.
JuJube (
talk)
00:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Restore. As I noted on the talk page previously, the reasons for deletion at the AfD still apply, technically. The song hasn't charted...yet. However, it's the lead single for a well-known artist who has had most of her singles becomes hits; almost all of them have charted. This one is getting pretty good airplay right off the bat, according to
Mediabase, and the single just got digitally released. I'd be really surprised if it doesn't chart within the next week or two. As such, doesn't
WP:COMMONSENSE apply?
SKS2K6 (
talk)
00:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse closure of the AfD, but allow recreation. This extended discussion is misplaced here. Quote
WP:DRV: "This page exists to correct closure errors in the deletion process." I don't see anyone disputing the closure of the AfD at the time. The circumstances have changed with the release of the single, however, and it might very well have the required notability now to pass
WP:N, so the reasoning from the AfD does no longer apply. Consequently, I don't think that it was still a clear candidate for
WP:CSD#G4.
Being placed on a major chart is usually considered enough to pass the inclusion guideline, but it is not a requirement to pass
WP:Music#Songs. The sources currently in the
the userfied article are in my opinion not enough to pass it, but that's no discussion to be held here. If still in doubt once it's moved back, it should be discussed at a second AfD. --
Amalthea
02:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- The DRV was about the G4 speedy, not the AFD. To see if the G4 is valid, you have to check if the AFD still applies (not if correct procedure was followed, the procedure question lies with G4) -
Mgm|
(talk)
10:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: I apologize if this is not the right place to mention this, but I feel it is worth noting that the song has already reached #3 on the US iTunes Music Store chart, making it one of the most downloaded songs currently. No doubt this will also be reflect in other music charts. Please
continue updating this page and redirect it to the proper "My Life Would Suck Without You" article page once possible. Thanks!
Whataworld06 (
talk)
06:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn deletion and restore: I had nothing to do with this but in looking over the article I see no reason why it should not be now restored. While I can understand the frustration at the article being recreated and G4'd, the root issue is that this is a single from a known artist that (now) meets the criteria. But I would also say that even when it was a
Crystal issue there were far more reliable sources than, for example,
The End Of An Error had when it was created (
first version) but yet that article sat for a month before it was tagged with a PROD (
dif) and than sent to
deletion discussion after it was removed. At that discussion, aside from the nom, the topic was if the album was real or not. A few user submitted "news" posts that confirmed a forthcoming release were submitted (and still exist in the article) as well as one user saying what has to be one of my "favorite" arguments ever - "It's a real album from a real band. And it's really coming out. It has 3 different sources to cite that this is the truth." When I brought that AFD to
DRV based on the fact the article was kept with zero discussions of "keep" or "delete" on the notability factor it was downplayed because, by the time of the DRV, the album had been released so it was no longer an issue. So when I see how there was support for that but an article with a subject that had more coverage gets a "delete" consensus despite
Reuters picking up the
Billboard story in December 2008 saying that "Kelly Clarkson's new single, "My Life Would Suck Without You," will hit U.S. radio outlets January 19" yet that is not good enough but a two line user submitted news story ("Houston Calls will release The End of an Error on October 14th. Album art is in the replies.") on
absolutepunk.net is. No matter how clear it might be that
Crystal discussions "should be discussed only in the artist's article" and not a case for deletion discussion it happens. Likewise the fact that "Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release" seems clear as well. But I think it is time to make the
singles, songs and albums guidelines far more clear in this regards. Actually the version of this Kelly Clarkson single article from
December 27, 2008 , the day before the AFD closed as "delete", is at least equal to how the above mentioned article looked on the day it's AFD was closed as a "keep" -
The End of an Error September 11, 2008. As for the G4 - From what I can see, how the article looked like on
December 19, 2008 is not the exact same as the
January 1, 2009 version and that is nothing like the
January 14, 2009 version. The current version at
User:Cameron Scott/My Life Would Suck Without You is fine and meets the criteria. Yes there was edit waring, yes other versions were done but I don't see this as a G4 issue at all at this point.
Soundvisions1 (
talk)
17:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn as "provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted" clearly doesn't apply.
Hobit (
talk)
00:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Restore The song has been announced as being released on February 14, 2009 in Australia, according to the Sony BMG website, therefore the page should be restored as it has now be announce in a country.
Billy4kate (
talk)
00:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Restore topic is no longer crystal-balling, and is receiving national airplay. No reason to keep this deleted or salted.
Acalamari
01:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
|