The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep as clear POV forking, as is obvious from the nominator's rationale. Nrswanson (talk · contribs) has created a mess of article and template forks. Xe has already once done a bogus copy-and-paste "move" of this particular article. And this is not the only article that xe nominated for deletion on the grounds that xe had written a fork. Edit the existing articles and templates if you think that they are non-neutral. Do not create POV forks. I've tidied up some of the mess. I encourage editors with an interest in these articles to perform cleanup of Falsetto and Voice type, to integrate Nrswanson's text properly. Uncle G (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Falsetto[edit]

Falsetto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Delete- This article contains material that is covered in other wikipedia articles, most notably falsetto register. Furthermore, this article fails to incoporate itself with the larger topic of vocal registration and is highly biased towards a vocal pedagological perspective that fails to incorporate the perspective of speech pathologists. In addition some of the information on this page is uncited or comes from suspect sources that lack credibility.Nrswanson (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I considered merging the two articles initially but the understanding of the term register between the two articles is so different I doubt this is possible. The falsetto article uses some controvercial perspectives on head voice and chest voice which are not widely embraced by the vocal pedagogical community.Nrswanson (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article Falsetto register is less than one day old, having previously been a redirect to Falsetto. It is written entirely by Nrswanson (talk · contribs). Why was this done, instead of editing Falsetto, the obvious article for this subject? This resembles an end-run around WP:CONSENSUS. / edg ☺ ☭ 06:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The new article was written in one day. It can be merged in another. Disputes in content can be discussed on Talk:Falsetto. Keeping these separate because of disagreements on terms and perspective creates by definition a WP:POVFORK. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep AFD is not the place to resolve disputes about content. Falsetto should obviously be the primary article and Falsetto register either a more technical article or a redirect. Deletion is not a sensible option. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Close AfD and continue discussion on talk pages of relevant articles. There may be a case for separate "Falsetto" and "Falsetto register" articles, but AfD is not the place to decide this. Tevildo (talk) 10:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. per above. Established article that shouldn't be deleted just because the nominator has created another article on the subject. After keeping, a merge would seem sensible.--Michig (talk) 10:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Straight deletion as opposed to merging is too drastic and too soon. There is considerable scope for improving the accuracy and sourcing of the text in Falsetto, but it also has valuable information not currently covered in Falsetto register. Because it specifically concentrates on the use of falsetto in singing and in a relatively less detailed and technical way than does Falsetto register, it is of perhaps greater use to the general reader. I would recommend keeping both, editing them for consistency and cross referencing the articles to each other via a "See also" section or inserting at relevant points each article: ((main|Falsetto register)) ((main|Falsetto)) Voceditenore (talk) 11:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two articles together total less than 19kb, and overlap. There is no reason they cannot be combined with "general" and "technical" information in different sections. WP:SUMMARY style is not needed here; doing so encourages the WP:POVFORK. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per edg above. AfD is not for content disputes. Lankiveil (talk) 13:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Speedy keep per everyone and WP:SNOW.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.