====
-
Regional At Best (album) (
talk|
|
history|
logs|
links|
watch) (
XfD|
restore)
The keep !votes were all based on opinion. The delete and redirect were based on policy. I have no idea how this ended up as no consensus.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
16:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn to redirect. The Keep rationales had no basis in Wikipedia's policies or guidelines ("This is an EXTREMELY important album", "This album is beloved by so many fans", "It's completely valid"), The rationales for redirection/deletion did and they weren't rebutted. While numerically it was only slightly in favour of deletion, as noted in the closing statement, AfD closers are supposed to look at strength of argument and adherence to policies/guidelines rather than just head count.
Hut 8.5
16:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - There is a long and contentious history associated with this album, and there has been
gaming of the name of the album, creating multiple titles by changing the capitalization, and changing whether the unnecessary disambiguator (album) is used. The following different versions of the name have different histories:
-
Regional at Best (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs) - The primary title
-
Regional At Best (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Regional at Best (album) (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Regional At Best (album) (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs) - The subject of the AFD now being reviewed.
- The primary title,
Regional at Best, has been a locked (salted) redirect to
Twenty-One Pilots since 2017. The other forms of the name should have been redirected to the primary name, and the use of the other forms has been a device to evade the create-protection.
- I declined one of the drafts (three times), and advised the submitters that, if they disagreed with the 2017 salting, they should request its unsalting at
DRV. I did not take part in the AFD that is currently the subject of this appeal.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
03:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
reply
Overturn to Speedy Delete as
G4. The nominator-appellant,
User:Walter Görlitz, correctly observed that there had been previous deletion discussions, and that changing the capitalization is not a new title. The closer erred in failing to look into the previous deletion.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
04:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - The closer recommended that there should be a talk page discussion, and the closer was correct in making that recommendation, but the discussion should be about whether to unsalt the primary title, not about any circumvention of the deletion of the primary title. In particular, the proponents of the album, who appear to be working in collusion, should be advised how to establish
album notability. My own opinion is that the contentious efforts to list the album are evidence that it has a
cult following.
The album notability guideline does not have a provision for
cult following; it probably should. In the meantime,
Use Common Sense applies, and
name gaming should not be rewarded.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
04:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn to redirect per Hut 8.5. The keeps had no policy basis whatsoever and thus should have been ignored. See
WP:NOTAVOTE.
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
04:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse or Relist - what those complaining about "flimsy" keep rationales appeared to have missed is that they also improved the article, which was not commented on by anyone else. I have also just reprimanded
Walter Görlitz for edit-warring elsewhere, and mentioned that I would have relisted the AfD if asked nicely (note that Walter filed this DRV ten minutes after sending me a note on my talk page, which I didn't get round to reading until I logged back in 15 hours later). I don't understand why people are getting hot-headed over this, obscure articles by notable bands seem
pretty
standard around here.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
09:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn to redirect or, alternatively, relist. The keep !votes were not grounded in policy, and while I think no consensus would have been a more appropriate outcome had those votes not been challenged by Doomsdayer520, the redirects had the much stronger argument here, and I don't think "no consensus" was an appropriate outcome.
SportingFlyer
T·
C
13:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn to redirect. Or delete and then redirect. And then salt. Either way, there is no consensus, either currently or historically, to keep the article. An article that was improperly recreated in order to bypass pre-existing create-protection: an abuse of our procedures should not be rewarded. I note that it's also not up to the closer to decide, subjectively, whether the edits of one side or another "improve" the article.
——
Serial
13:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
reply
- But there were a few people who wanted to delete the article! So it's not a clear consensus to redirect. I also note that Walter Görlitz tried to change this into a redirect (which is fine as it's one of the non-admin actions I recommended) and then edit-warred with
Joe Roe over it, and
called Joe a dick in response. I'm sorry to see a simple request for a relist has been turned into a silly dramafest.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
13:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
reply
- With a close respecting consensusd in the first place we would not be here. I think I'm well-known to be not on the Gorlitz-bandwagon (know ye of such a thing?), but per ATD, I note that none of the deletes challenged the redirects. And the fact that that it was recreated out of consensus does not give carte blanche to keep the bloody thing.
——
Serial
13:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
reply
- For the bandwagon, check Reddit. I've been told there's one there.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
16:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn to redirect (or relist as an alternative). Despite the OP's suboptimal behaviour (why come to Ritchie's talk page to announce "I am redirecting" without even having a discussion there, and then go straight to DRV after being reverted over the redirect without informing the closer?) I do think this is a case where the redirect arguments were much stronger than the keeps, and given the two prior AFDs and the recreation protection of the existing redirects, this should be redirected to match.--
Pawnkingthree (
talk)
13:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn to redirect. Not a good close at all. All three "Keep" stances are
WP:VAGUEWAVE
WP:ATAs. One was literally an unqualified "it's valid". While deleting seems like a viable route in the AFD, I can see how one wouldn't close as delete based on the discussion itself. But worst case scenario is a relist, which was never done. Giving up as a "no consensus" was entirely premature.
Sergecross73
msg me
15:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
reply
- While I realise today appears to be National Duff up Ritchie333 For Making One Mistake Day, I want to emphasise I would have done a relist by now, were it not for the fact this DRV was created almost immediately after leaving a note on my talk page with no possible time to react.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
15:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
reply
- This seems like yet another discussion that illustrates the point I have made before that deletion discussions should be about whether an admin presses the "delete" button. Things like redirection, merging or moving can be decided by non-admins on talk pages without deletion discussions or deletion reviews.
Phil Bridger (
talk)
20:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Redirects and merges are forms of "this article should not be in mainspace" and while are not technically equivalent to deletion, function in the same way as a deletion to readers. There is no reason to bifurcate or trifurcate the process.
SportingFlyer
T·
C
21:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
reply
- If a title is redirected the reader is taken somewhere that has content about the subject. If it is deleted the reader gets nothing. Those experiences are completely different. It is the concept of "this article should not be in mainspace" that is meaningless to our readers.
Phil Bridger (
talk)
22:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
reply
- (
edit conflict) I have redirected non-notable content and had new users show up at my talk page asking why I deleted the content. From this I can assume that to a reader, it is the same thing as SportingFlyer claims.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
22:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
reply
- It also makes no sense for an admin to close an AfD with a redirect/merge consensus as an "I'm not going to delete this, redirect/merge as you please." It'd be very inefficient.
SportingFlyer
T·
C
07:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn to either redirect or delete. The "Keep" arguments were all poor and not policy-based, and AfD closes should be based upon reading and evaluating the discussion, not just a simple nose count.
Seraphimblade
Talk to me
00:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
reply
- 'Overturn to Delete as insignificant topic, with the closing not based on policy, but on arguments that should bediscounted. ; if a redirect is decided on, at least it shouldbe protected.
DGG (
talk )
07:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn to Redirect, look, this album is nice and all, but it doesn't warrant an article. Neither do many other stubs of EPs and albums by other bands warrant one either, just because they're there doesn't justify this one staying. It's somewhat referenced but hasn't charted or sold a significant amount to be considered notable for its own article. Their self-titled record has, at the very least, charted on the US Billboard 200 and made returns to the iTunes charts several times since its release.
EthanRossie2000
09:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Relist At the least this is a good case for a redirect, but deletion makes no sense at all. A redirect of this to the band would easily withstand an RfD. That said, this is a fairly significant band and as bad as the keep !votes were, I suspect sources exist and I'd like to see it get another shot at the apple. But if nothing else turns up, redirect is the way to go.
Hobit (
talk)
04:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The point is that the article has existed in many forms for many years, and no, there no better sources about the album itself. Several editors have tried to find them, but they just do not exist. Some of the songs that reappear in later works get mentioned in lists. Some other tangential content exists, but this is all in the band article already.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
05:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn to redirect as ATD (strong consensus this doesn't warrant a separate page), do not relist. This has been discussed 3 (!) times and in all three AFDs put together, zero policy-based rationales for keeping this as a separate article have been advanced. Unsure why the closer gave any weight to !votes of
WP:ITSIMPORTANT,
WP:ITSPOPULAR, and whatever "its valid" is suppose to mean. We've hashed this to death multiple times, and the consensus is getting pretty darn strong this isn't a notable album. Protect the redirect(s) to prevent ongoing disruption and dispense with the drafts. Three AFDs have determined that this isn't stand-alone article material, and the questions about if a redirect at this title is appropriate or not can be handled at
WP:RFD as a redirect matter.
Hog Farm
Talk
21:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Comments on Regional at Best
- To
User:Ritchie333
You ask why people are getting "hot-headed" over this. I will try to explain. First, this is a
music dispute, and music disputes are often bitter, between inclusionsists, and redirectionists, who want to redirect songs to albums, and sometimes albums to bands. This is a dispute over including an album or redirecting it to a band. That is a reason.
Second, you, the closer, made a mistake, and failed to take into account the strange and contentious history. Third, there really had been
gaming of names, a conduct issue, by the proponents, to try to work around the 2017 salting, by changing the capitalization and disambiguation of the title, rather than by requesting that the title be unsalted. Fourth, the appellant,
User:Walter Görlitz, really was edit-warring over the No Consensus or redirect. Fifth, there really is a gap in the
musical notability criteria, which does not have a provision for albums with a
cult following. Sixth, this is a
music dispute.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
04:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
reply
- To
User:Phil Bridger
You say that the only purpose of XFD is to decide whether an administrator should hit the Delete button. I disagree, and I think that you are seriously mistaken in good faith. You write: "Things like redirection, merging or moving can be decided by non-admins on talk pages without deletion discussions or deletion reviews." Sometimes the non-admins disagree, and cannot reach consensus on talk pages. How are those disputes then to be resolved? Article content disputes are resolved by RFC. Should RFCs be used to resolve redirection disputes, or should AFD, which is an RFC-like consensus process, be used? I assume that you do not mean that such disputes should be resolved by edit-warring. Not all disputes can be resolved by discussion. In particular,
music disputes are usually questions of whether to keep (a song or album) or redirect (to the album or band). This is an example of how AFD is needed even if Delete is not one of the choices.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
04:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Album with
Cult following
The
musical notability guidelines should be revised to refer to albums having a
cult following. Also, the proponents of the album should provide documentation of that cult following, rather than just saying that the album is important. The guideline should be revised, but the proponents are not being constructive.
- What Next
- RELIST: This is the third AFD for the album, which is currently salted. The proponents should have made a request here, at DRV, to unsalt the title, rather than trying to sneak around the salting. Now that we are here, although we are here due to a combination of misconduct by the proponents and a good-faith error by an admin, we should consider whether the album should be considered notable in 2021.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
04:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
reply
|