 |
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
- 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 no consensus, default to keep. My reading of the debate below is that every attempt to invoke policy in the debate, whichever way the policy points, has been refuted. There is a split vote, and I can't see this discussion getting unstuck anytime soon, so I'm closing this as NC. Deryck C. 17:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
List of people with surname Jones[edit]
- List of people with surname Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people named Jacob and other precedents listed there, there is a consensus that lists of people sharing name are not useful when there are very many notable people with that name. – Fayenatic London 21:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Question. Is there a precedent for deleting a list of people with the same surname, on the "list too long" theory or otherwise? Whatever one may think of the result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people named Jacob, I would anticipate (and maybe agree with) the argument that a surname-based list is potentially more helpful to navigation. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- There's a slight difference between lists of people that share a common forename and one that shares a common surname. Especially given that Jones is one of the most common Welsh surnames out there. This list is an extension of the Jones (surname) page. Most surname pages are in a sense disambiguation pages, and list a number of notable people who share that name.
So if anything this page should be Merged with it.Funny Pika! 22:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- On second thoughts, the page looks far too long to merge together. Looking through this category Category:Lists of people sharing a surname there's quite a few lists of surnames. Although WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid reason for inclusion, I'd still say the list should be kept in some form like Arxiloxos states - as a means of searching for articles on people named Jones. Possibly by breaking down each section into separate pages based on occupation?
- Previous attempts at consensus is listed here: Wikipedia:Deletion policy/names and surnames. Funny Pika! 23:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I should have mentioned that the page was created by splitting it from Jones (surname). I am glad that you do not want to merge it, and I would certainly oppose re-merging. As for the others in Category:Lists of people sharing a surname, I would advocate deleting others that are too long to merge back into the surname page, such as List of people with surname Johnson and List of people with surname Williams. Pages in it that are regular surname pages (anthroponymy articles), which include a list of notable examples anyway, do not need to be in that category; I intend to prune it, but will defer that until after this discussion. – Fayenatic London 14:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think the page is useful, for example someone looking for a singer called Jones but not sure of the first name. When pages get too long they need to be broken up, which is presumably why it got split off from Jones (surname). It is over 500 lines long already, which is probably unmanageable for someone trying to navigate it on a mobile phone. I would oppose deletion but splitting it into different categories as FunnyPika suggested is the best solution I can think of. Jll (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- I would merge the "See also" section (listing Alan Jones (disambiguation) etc) back into Jones (surname), but as for the biography articles, I have added a link for All pages including "Jones" in the title and IMHO that is enough.
- If I wanted to look for a singer named Jones, without this list, I would simply search Wikipedia for singer jones; this first brings up Joneses that have "(singer)" in the page name, then redirects, and after those it shows others that have the word "singer" in the article.
- Wikipedia has a policy page which says Wikipedia is not a directory. As a matter of policy I think this page should go. – Fayenatic London 14:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- We can have a reasonable discussion about whether this page is useful and appropriate in its current form, but to haul out the "policy" nuclear option to attack something like this seems incorrect. If WP:NOTDIR really prohibited the creation of navigational disambiguation pages intended to help readers sort through existing articles, then it's WP:NOTDIR that would need changing, not this page. But that's not what the policy is about. As far as the suggestion that using the search engine is enough: Look at the 18,142 results you get[1]. The search engine spits them out titles first, yes, but otherwise in more or less random order; not to mention, of course, that it won't distinguish between first and last names, and (except for the rare articles that actually have "singer" in the title) it won't distinguish between articles that are about a singer and those where the word happens to be used somewhere in the article, and it presumably won't identify articles that use a different word like "musician" instead of singer. My own experience is that the Wikipedia search engine is often not very helpful for working through larger batches of results; Google may be better, but why, exactly, do we need to get rid of a proper disambiguation page just because it's big? --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- But it is not a (proper) disambiguation page; see MOS:DABNAME. It is clearly a directory.
- Moreover, it is a very incomplete directory, and the potential contents are so large that I think it would be unmanageable to try to finish it. Special:Search/intitle:Jones gives over 4,300 pages. Doing the same search for jones singer and jones musician gives 24 + 43 = 67 pages, but only 12 of those 67 are currently in the 50 or so currently listed under Music.
- If people want to keep directories like this, then start a discussion at WP:NOT. Meanwhile, WP:ILIKEIT is not a good argument. The task of the participants at AfD, especially the person who closes, is to implement Wikipedia policy. If we delete this and later on the policy does get changed, the page could always be undeleted and then split, expanded or otherwise improved. However, it seems to me that WP:NOTDIR is a clear and strong line in WP policy. – Fayenatic London 14:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- We can have a reasonable discussion about whether this page is useful and appropriate in its current form, but to haul out the "policy" nuclear option to attack something like this seems incorrect. If WP:NOTDIR really prohibited the creation of navigational disambiguation pages intended to help readers sort through existing articles, then it's WP:NOTDIR that would need changing, not this page. But that's not what the policy is about. As far as the suggestion that using the search engine is enough: Look at the 18,142 results you get[1]. The search engine spits them out titles first, yes, but otherwise in more or less random order; not to mention, of course, that it won't distinguish between first and last names, and (except for the rare articles that actually have "singer" in the title) it won't distinguish between articles that are about a singer and those where the word happens to be used somewhere in the article, and it presumably won't identify articles that use a different word like "musician" instead of singer. My own experience is that the Wikipedia search engine is often not very helpful for working through larger batches of results; Google may be better, but why, exactly, do we need to get rid of a proper disambiguation page just because it's big? --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- It may well be a directory, but as are most lists that Wikipedia encompasses. For me, inappropriate directories in Wikipedia are those that just list schedules or point to an external link (List of breweries in South Carolina). Here the list is pointing to a page on Wikipedia and could help users find articles on people named Jones.
- WP:NOTFINISHED is an equally poor argument. Most pages on Wikipedia are unfinished, but that does not mean we should delete every unfinished page. Yes, the list is extremely large and borderline indiscriminate. Yet I don't understand why your suggestion that it could be "split, expanded or otherwise improved" cannot be done prior to deletion rather than after, as per WP:NCLL. Funny Pika! 16:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- I completely agree about List of breweries in South Carolina, as none of the contents have Wikipedia articles, so I have proposed it for deletion.
- My argument about this Jones list is that it should only be kept at all if Wikipedia policy is changed. Although I sometimes work myself on a page during an AfD to see if it can be rescued, I would not encourage editors to do extensive work on a page which I believe does not belong here at all under the present framework. WP:NCLL is about breaking up pages that are justifiable and should be useful when complete; I do not believe those apply here. – Fayenatic London 17:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The list is well structured so that the contents index guides the reader well. There may be a better way of doing this but, per WP:PRESERVE, we should keep the blue link and edit history as a foundation. Deletion would just be disruption. Warden (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- WP:PRESERVE is a good one, and I normally give it a lot of weight. However, because this is (i) so incomplete and (ii) practically impossible to complete and maintain, I do not think it is desirable to encourage further work on it. – Fayenatic London 14:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- It seems quite complete to me. For example, off the top of my head I think of three famous Jones: Tom Jones (singer); John Paul Jones and Jones the cat. I find that they are all in the list and so we're good. Warden (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's part of the problem: it consists of the most famous people and some editors' favourites. If it was complete, it would list about 4,000 existing articles. See the stats I added earlier today: only 12 of 67 pages that include Jones as well as either singer or musician in their page name are listed.
- Lists are not required to be exhaustive and complete. That's why we have the template ((dynamic list)) which states "This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness.". Lists such as list of numbers are provably infinite. Lists such as list of rivers tail off into inummerable minor streams and creeks. It is quite normal, natural and expected that we should concentrate upon the more famous cases. Warden (talk) 07:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 03:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NLIST; "Furthermore, every entry in any such list requires a reliable source attesting to the fact that the named person is a member of the listed group." - we're gonna need proof that everyone named "John" is equally reliable per sourcing in order to attest they belong as a member of the list. So solly Ren99 wha?
05:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment — that is not a problem, just a matter of work through drawing over a citation from each of the articles supporting the person being so named ... assuming that a biographical article actually has a citation supporting the person's name in association with the identity of the person being described. I would be interested to know if you have examples where this assumption is incorrect; such examples should be deleted ASAP, I would think. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect to Jones. To have such a list would be an indiscriminate collection of people who just happen to share the same, very common, surname. Ohconfucius ping / poke 06:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect to Jones. IronKnuckle (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete -looking at Wikipedia is not a directory it states "...there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic" and clearly none of the folks in this list are famous because of their surname. I'm not seeing any rationales for keeping being presented other than I like it. J04n(talk page) 20:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Its use as a navigational page was presented as a valid argument. As was the statement: long lists are indiscriminate directories. The proposal is for users who want to search for people based on a surname and an occupation to be able to find a list that points to an article for that person. The searchbox in this case would be more indiscriminate, displaying a random list of people named foo in no particular order. The article is possibly salvageable if split, so I believe there's a format problem here rather than a content one.
- In reference to WP:NLIST, I don't think anyone here is debating whether foo belongs in said list. If you really want to go down that route you'd just have to prove WP:V (or WP:N), something all biographical articles should meet. WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue in reference to whether people named Jones should be included in lists of Joneses. Funny Pika! 00:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - WP:NOTDIR. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- WP:VAGUEWAVE. There's nothing in WP:NOTDIR which is relevant. It does not forbid long lists and we have many such, e.g. the humunguous list of minor planets. Warden (talk) 07:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I almost presented a "keep" argument, saying that we should ignore the letter of the rules here, and that this list is inherently useful. However, I could not find an instance where the search box would be any less useful than this list. If you know a person's last name and what they are notable for, using Google and/or the Wikipedia search function will take you to their page. I don't see any reasonable use for this list. Jujutacular (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- If I put "jones cat" into the search box, thinking of the character in Alien (film) then I get zillions of false hits such as Doctor Jones because the word cat is used in a technical sense. I am an expert in searching for things and it isn't easy. What you need are multiple approaches and tools. Depending upon a single tool is unwise. Deleting a useful index just because you can is disruption. How is such deletion supposed to help the encyclopedia or our readership? Deletion just seems purely obstructive and unhelpful. Warden (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per what wiki is not. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- You could say that about anything but you provide no evidence. The actual evidence is that Wikipedia has many such lists:
- See Category:Lists of people sharing a surname for many more examples. Why should we discriminate against the Jones? Warden (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- In my opinion they should be deleted also. I'm not nominating them at this time however it would probably be a good idea. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, this is a subpage of the main disambiguation and surname pages, and like disambiguation pages it's a list for navigation purposes not a list as a presentation of encyclopedic content. It's no more a directory than any disambiguation page or set index. Peter James (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Instead of arguing for deletion of these things one by one, why not find a broader discussion somewhere, and determine if Wikipedia should have these sorts of list or not? Category:Lists of people sharing a surname has 163 entries. This list aid in navigation. You search for the last name of someone, you can then see which person it is you are looking for. You could call it a disambiguate page instead of a list if you wanted to. That is what it is after all. Dream Focus 13:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Merge with Jones (surname). Generally speaking, that's how lists of people by last name are covered pbp 14:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 Delete. The only policy-based arguments are made by those favoring deletion, and these arguments are fairly strong. A lack of reliable secondary sources that are independent of the article's subject is essential to meet WP:GNG. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Idea and Ideology[edit]
- Idea and Ideology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Another self-published book by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. The only independent source used to establish notability is also self-published. A redirect to Sarkar's biographical page would be fine, but I think deletion without redirection is warranted. GaramondLethe 21:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar; lacks independent sources, seems to be part of the same walled garden as other recent articles brought to AfD... bobrayner (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar; as usual. History2007 (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality -related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep... but why don't we save everyone a bit of time and trouble here? I am willing to stipulate that all of Garamond's and Bob's compadres at Fringe/n would cast a Delete vote here. And I am even willing to predict - not stipulate - that some Wikipedia admin will come here after seven days and simply tally the votes, ignoring the fact that there is no consensus, and decide to either delete or redirect. So there's no need to dedicate much energy putting lipstick on this pig. --Abhidevananda (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Consensus is not a head count, neither does it have to be unanimous. Closing administrators are experienced enough to determine a rough consensus in an AfD based upon policy, common sense and strength of the argument. Besides, this discussion is listed on five different noticeboards, not just FTN. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 12:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ahh, CorrectKnowledge... another compadre and a familiar pseudonym... would that the CK pseudonym were so!
Just for the record, I never said that consensus necessarily means unanimity (although it is commonly interpreted as such). However, in respect to Wikipedia, WP:CON makes clear that consensus does need to be more broad than just a unanimity among a "limited group of editors", for example, a group of editors presenting only a particular perspective (involved with an article, not involved with an article, conservative, liberal, mainstream, new-age, fringe, anti-fringe, or whatever). Nowhere at WP:CON do we find the concept of consensus diluted to your (CorrectKnowledge's) "rough consensus". In effect, asserting a "rough consensus" is just a specious way of avoiding an admission that there is "no consensus". According to WP:CON, no consensus is not adequate justification for removing an article. Quite the contrary. "In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept." --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Before claiming that I had originated the concept of "rough consensus" and that it was a "specious way of avoiding an admission that there is no consensus", maybe you should have gone through Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 17:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Before claiming that I had originated the concept of "rough consensus" and that it was a "specious way of avoiding an admission that there is no consensus", maybe you should have gone through Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus.
- Ahh, CorrectKnowledge... another compadre and a familiar pseudonym... would that the CK pseudonym were so!
- Consensus is not a head count, neither does it have to be unanimous. Closing administrators are experienced enough to determine a rough consensus in an AfD based upon policy, common sense and strength of the argument. Besides, this discussion is listed on five different noticeboards, not just FTN. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 12:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- CK, did I assert that you had originated any concept? If so, I apologize for overrating your creativity. But the way you use this concept is indeed a "specious way of avoiding an admission that there is no consensus". The Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus that you cite only mentions one case in which a "rough consensus" may be accepted. That case is "bad faith". It amplifies that case with the following example: "If a rough consensus holds that the nomination was made in bad faith, the page may be speedily kept." So I am sorry to tell you this, CK, but you seem to have shot yourself in the foot with this one. --Abhidevananda (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- "...only mentions one case in which a "rough consensus" may be accepted" really? That is just an example. The section also mentions how strength of argument should be looked at and arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact etc. can be discounted. That is pretty much what I said and that is exactly what happened in all the previous AfDs where you !voted keep. Crying no consensus with absolutely no reasonable arguments will not help in an Afd, but if you want to have a go at it, suit yourself. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 19:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- CK, did I assert that you had originated any concept? If so, I apologize for overrating your creativity. But the way you use this concept is indeed a "specious way of avoiding an admission that there is no consensus". The Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus that you cite only mentions one case in which a "rough consensus" may be accepted. That case is "bad faith". It amplifies that case with the following example: "If a rough consensus holds that the nomination was made in bad faith, the page may be speedily kept." So I am sorry to tell you this, CK, but you seem to have shot yourself in the foot with this one.
- Editor's long comment & note for the closing Admin.: for nearly a month the same group of users is proposing the deletion of dozens of articles I had written on WP. All articles belonged to the vast literary production of a single author. Let's suppose that some articles were poorly written, or that others were even not very encyclopedic. But that so many articles can be proposed for deletion by a single group of users, with various excuses, seems to me absurd and suspicious. WP was born to spread the totality of human knowledge, not only a part of it. Everyone is invited on WP to cooperatively create/maximize/improve new articles not to delete them. Deleting an article should only be an exceptional case and not a way of working of a group of editors. Censorship is an ancient art. I am experienced enough in history to be able to say that. Some expert users on WP seems not involved at all in the hard task of building new articles but in the relatively easy job of deleting many of them. Using bureaucratic quibbles as a weapon to censor/delete the encyclopedic representation of the part of knowledge that they simply don't like or don't understand.
- Instead of devoting their energies to increase the number of new articles, literally they chase you all around WP, analitically examining your talks and articles to find loopholes or a reason to stop your editing if they don't agree with the contents. What I am saying are not chatter in the wind: you can easily check it by just doing an analysis of the historical contributions of many "deleters". Hundreds of hours used in inconclusive, furious quarrels, personal attacks, angry deletions reserved for the "enemies", many "good tips" and very, very few or no new articles at all.
- My opinion is that this is the best way to kill WP: if everything will remain so many editors will go away one after another. At the same time the increasing volume of human knowledge will require in the near future an increasing number of editors... Thanks.--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: for the reasons above.--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- You mention Sarkar's "vast literary production" &c on very many pages. It might be helpful to turn that down a little. bobrayner (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Another typical example of respect for WP users/editors signed by Bobrayner.--Cornelius383 (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. The book does not find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 20:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect. Lack of coverage in independent reliable sources means this fails WP:NBOOK. I also have heavy concerns regarding WP:SOAPBOX given the context of many similarly-created articles. Location (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete due to very poor sourcing. Bearian (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. MBisanz talk 00:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
PROUT in a Nutshell[edit]
- PROUT in a Nutshell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This 26-volume collection of the speeches of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar is cited moderately often in the peer-reviewed literature when a quotation from Sarkar is required, but I've not been able to track down any discussion of the collection itself that would establish notability. I should probably add that while this collection is certainly an artifact of a "political or religious movement" I haven't been able to find any independent sources that attest to this collection having influenced such a movement. Likewise, Sarkar is a minor player in 20th C. Indian religious movements and as such his life and works have not been a common subject of academic study.
GaramondLethe 17:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
*Delete or merge as nominator. I wouldn't object to a redirect to the Sarkar article. GaramondLethe 17:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC) as nom.
- As nominator, it is assumed you support deletion/merge - no need to also "vote".--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a remarkably weak nomination. The nominator effectively admits notability in almost every sentence of his nomination: "cited moderately often in peer-reviewed literature", "player in 20th C. Indian religious movements", "a subject of academic study". That anyone would actually nominate 26 volumes of work for deletion on the basis of so many explicit or implicit admissions of notability only tends to call in question the many other AfDs that have been recently submitted - and amazingly pushed through - all of them connected with Sarkar's books. So I vote Keep... for the very reasons stated in Garamond's AfD nomination. --Abhidevananda (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Those points concern the notability of Sarkar. This is not an AfD on Sarkar. It is on "PROUT in a Nutshell", and notability is not inherited. bobrayner (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Two points, here, Bob. (1) The first point was not about Sarkar but rather about the series of books under consideration here. (2) All three points were raised by the nominator and not myself. If two of those three points are indeed irrelevant, then the nominator should not have mentioned them. In that case what we come up with is simply the nominator conceding that these 26 volumes are "cited moderately often in the peer-reviewed literature". That admission makes this AfD nomination appear frivolous. But why don't we save everyone a bit of time and trouble here? I am willing to stipulate that all of Garamond's and your compadres at Fringe/n would or will cast a Delete or Redirect vote here. And I am even willing to predict - not stipulate - that some Wikipedia admin will come here after seven days and simply tally the votes, ignoring the fact that there is no consensus and that the nominator's remarks only prove that the nomination should not have been made. Let's not waste our energy putting lipstick on this pig. --Abhidevananda (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- At this point in my academic career, a handful of months removed from the end of my postdoc, I have four papers with 50+ citations (two where I'm first author). None of these papers are notable (in the wikipedia sense of that word) because the citations are referencing the ideas in those papers, not discussing the papers themselves. PROUT in a Nutshell has ~25 citations, all of which are referencing the ideas in the book and not discussing the book itself. If you can get the wikipedia notability guidelines changed to take citations into account, great! Until then notability is established by independent, reliable publications discussing the work. GaramondLethe 14:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Pardon me, Garamond, but I don't think that sour grapes regarding your four papers is a bona fide justification for an AfD nomination on an article about a series of books (21 volumes, I believe). But, hey, I wish you well in your academic career. --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Pardon me, Garamond, but I don't think that sour grapes regarding your four papers is a bona fide justification for an AfD nomination on an article about a series of books (21 volumes, I believe).
- Delete; still short of notability. It's impossible to develop neutral non-fringey content without sufficient coverage by independent sources. bobrayner (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar; as usual. History2007 (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature -related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Editor's long comment & note for the closing Admin.: for nearly a month the same group of users is proposing the deletion of dozens of articles I had written on WP. All articles belonged to the vast literary production of a single author. Let's suppose that some articles were poorly written, or that others were even not very encyclopedic. But that all articles can be proposed for deletion by a single group of users with various excuses seems to me absurd and suspicious. WP was born to spread the totality of human knowledge, not only a part of it. Everyone is invited on WP to cooperatively create/maximize/improve new articles not to delete them. Deleting an article should only be an exceptional case and not a way of working of a group of editors. Censorship is an ancient art. I am experienced enough in history to be able to say that. Some expert users on WP seems not involved at all in the hard task of building new articles but in the relatively easy job of deleting many of them. Using bureaucratic quibbles as a weapon to censor/delete the encyclopedic representation of the part of knowledge that they simply don't like or don't understand.
- Instead of devoting their energies to increase the number of new articles, literally they chase you all around WP, analitically examining your talks and articles to find loopholes or a reason to stop your editing if they don't agree with the contents. What I am saying are not chatter in the wind: you can easily check it by just doing an analysis of the historical contributions of many "deleters". Hundreds of hours used in inconclusive, furious quarrels, personal attacks, angry deletions reserved for the "enemies", many "good tips" and very, very few or no new articles at all.
- My opinion is that this is the best way to kill WP: if everything will remain so many editors will go away one after another. At the same time the increasing volume of human knowledge will require in the near future an increasing number of editors... Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: for the reasons above.--Cornelius383 (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. Does not appear to pass our book guidelines, but a redirect makes sense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 delete. An unnecessary sidetrack, but consensus is clear.Kubigula (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Unnecessary war[edit]
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)). |
- Unnecessary war (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There's no there there. Contains only a list of "unnecessary wars", and a list of "See also" entries, most of which would be inappropriate even if there were an article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Let me rephrase that. Not only is there nothing of interest in the present article, I can't imagine an encylopedic article being written. Even a definition would be problematic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- The article has been greatly expanded, but with nothing related to the topic. I do ask those who have !voted to consider whether the changes would affect their decision or reasoning. It doesn't affect mine. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Having served in Afghanistan for a year, it's hard to think of a more notable topic. --Xerographica (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't say the topic wasn't notable; I said that there is not and is not likely to be anything in reliable sources about the topic, as opposed to about individual wars (necessary, or not). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Did you read through all the reliable sources that I included in the article? --Xerographica (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- What sources? The material in the article consists only of an unsourced quasi-definition, a list of wars said to be unnecessary, a "See also" section (mostly irrelevant). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm referring to the sources in the "References" section. It's the section immediately after the "See also" section. --Xerographica (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- In context, I should only need to look at them to see if they support the lead. Whether or not they do, the lead doesn't have anything which can be supported, or would support the existence of an article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm referring to the sources in the "References" section. It's the section immediately after the "See also" section. --Xerographica (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- What sources? The material in the article consists only of an unsourced quasi-definition, a list of wars said to be unnecessary, a "See also" section (mostly irrelevant). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Did you read through all the reliable sources that I included in the article? --Xerographica (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: This is a classic example of Wikipedia:Citation overkill. None of the claimed "references", with the exception of this one (and possibly another which requires subscription), are actually focused on the term. The rest just used it as a descriptive phrase in normal language, not differently from how a food columnist may call a place a "good restaurant". As such, those refs do nothing to support the existence of the article as a distinct concept. On the other hand, Unused highway, which seems equally absurd as an article, was previously kept. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Can you please help me understand why so many people think that Wikipedia is a dictionary? Because according to core policy...it's really not. --Xerographica (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete This is an interesting case. This reads like original content and aren't any sources directly about this topic. It's a bit like an ESSAY as well. Vacation9 12:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- That's not surprising. In his time here, Xerographica has racked up a long record of "articles" that are basically original research and synthesis, often presenting them more as essays than anything else. If you try to call him on it, he says you're an ignorant amateur and should shut up. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Let's be fair. 1. The merits of this discussion turn on the value/merits/whatever of this article, not the original contributor or his behavior. 2. His recent comments on talk pages have been quite civil. He may even qualify for a Barnstar in this regard. – S. Rich (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's not surprising. In his time here, Xerographica has racked up a long record of "articles" that are basically original research and synthesis, often presenting them more as essays than anything else. If you try to call him on it, he says you're an ignorant amateur and should shut up. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete This article does not meet WP:SAA. it is hard to see how this could be anything other than "advocacy and controversial material". Each of the entries is someone's opinion that particular wars were unnecessary. And then the list would go on and on and on. (Too bad we do not see Pig War listed.) To balance the article, other peoples' opinions would have to be added to say "no -- that war was necessary." If the article is intended to talk about war as an unnecessary event in general, then pacifism and anti-war are available to cover the subject. It won't work to say "'Unnecessary war' is a concept that should have its' own article -- look at the RS that use the term." They only use the term because the RS is advocating their views about those particular wars, and not about unnecessary war as an overall concept.--S. Rich (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete - No encycloped value, is this some kind of philosophical or motivational poster. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 14:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)- Delete - it's easy to argue all wars are unnecessary; or that every war is necessary. This article would never be able to be neutral (the title itself already marks it out on a specific side) either. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete as dictionary definition of a non-notable neologism. Also a classic example of my own Timbo's Rule No. 14: "Whenever you see multiple stacked footnotes in a lead to document a subject phrase as encyclopedic, it probably isn't." Carrite (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I will state though that philosophers have for centuries been debating the question of what constitutes a "just war", and conversely, what makes some wars "unjust" or "unnecessary". A rewritten article referencing prominent philosophers discussing this topic could be encyclopedic and satisfy WP:NPOV. However, just war theory already covers this subject reasonably well, so introducing an overview of this philosophical debate into the article in question would simply be redundant. Moreover, my Google searches do not suggest that "unnecessary war" has become a widely adopted phrase, so I don't see the need for a redirect to just war theory. --Mike Agricola (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Please, I beg of you folks. Please, please, please, please learn enough about economics in order to make an informed decision on the topic. Otherwise, you're simply doing me, and the readers, a huge disservice. Please see the talk page for my explanation of basic public economics. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Please look over the entry. I hastily added some relevant and useful content. There's plenty more reliably sourced content that can be added. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't notice you said that. It doesn't affect my reasoning, but I also ask that those who have !voted to consider whether the changes affect their votes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- It doesn't affect my reasoning either. Some of the freshly added material in the section entitled "Opportunity costs of war" is, in my opinion, worth discussing from the standpoint of just war theory - which is precisely where it is best to discuss it. In my view, it has still not been sufficiently demonstrated that the need for a separate article exists. --Mike Agricola (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Did you read what I posted on this talk page? It's the difference between philosophy and economics. --Xerographica (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- It doesn't affect my reasoning either. Some of the freshly added material in the section entitled "Opportunity costs of war" is, in my opinion, worth discussing from the standpoint of just war theory - which is precisely where it is best to discuss it. In my view, it has still not been sufficiently demonstrated that the need for a separate article exists. --Mike Agricola (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't notice you said that. It doesn't affect my reasoning, but I also ask that those who have !voted to consider whether the changes affect their votes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Even if you were to focus on the economic aspect of wars, you'd have to find some reliable sources to support your claim (for example case studies or research papers). Then find sources linking this to the phrase "unnecessary war". At the moment, I can only see opinion piece references describing wars as unnecessary. Funny Pika! 01:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Do you dispute what I posted on this talk page? --Xerographica (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think you're trying to merge two distinct issues into one extremely subjective topic. I still can't see a verifiable link between the two. Funny Pika! 02:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- What are the two distinct issues? --Xerographica (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps philosophy and economics?--S. Rich (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- @Xerographica, yes I did take a look at the Talk page to which you linked. The problem as I see it is this: Although the article could (conceivably) be rewritten to satisfy WP:NPOV, the subject matter just isn't sufficiently unique to warrant its existence as a separate article. Some of the arguments made do touch on philosophy (e.g. value of human life). The cost of conflict already discusses some of the economic arguments including the opportunity cost of war. Indeed, cost of conflict would be a good merge destination for some of the material that has been recently added to the article, especially as cost of conflict already has its own subsection entitled "Opportunity Cost". Other relevant articles like antiwar have already been mentioned. Moreover, it also needs to be demonstrated that "unnecessary war" is an established idiom of economics, analogous to "just war" in the context of philosophy. --Mike Agricola (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- You bring up a lot of good points. Honestly I didn't even know that there was a cost of conflict article. But there's an article for unused highway and bridge to nowhere...so it didn't seem that much of a stretch, given the numerous reliable sources that have covered the concept, for there to be an article on unnecessary war. From the economic perspective...there's absolutely no difference between an unused highway, a bridge to nowhere and an unnecessary war. It's simply where the government has supplied a greater amount of a public good than the public truly demands. This is a direct result of the preference revelation problem... User:Xerographica/Preference_revelation. Can all this be covered in the cost of conflict article? Sure...just like it can also be covered in the opportunity cost article...and in the article on the parable of the broken window. But, from my perspective, based on a thorough review of public economics...User:Xerographica/Principles of taxation...this topic is certainly notable enough to warrant its own entry. Unfortunately, it seems doomed by a consensus of Wikipedia editors who are not familiar with public economics. So I moved it over to a subpage...User:Xerographica/Unnecessary_war. You're certainly more than welcome to give me a hand developing it. --Xerographica (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- How do you know that some of the editors here are not economics majors, or experts in the field? "Unnecessary wars" is not an issue, in my eyes, that has ANYTHING to do with economics - to me, that title is to do with morals, and whether one perceives a war has removed a perceived oppression, or not. Any economical aspect in this article is a duplication of the opportunity cost and cost of conflict articles by default, and belongs there. Anything else will almost certainly violate WP:NPOV. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- If an editor who has voted here was even remotely familiar with public economics then they would have replied to my post on this talk page with an informed comment. --Xerographica (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Bad assumption. You can't assume everyone will go to the talk page... Lukeno94 (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Seriously? You're arguing that in any given group of editors...there's going to be a reasonable amount who've read James M. Buchanan and Elinor Ostrom? I WISH! No, your assumption is extremely far-fetched...while mine is based on a firm understanding that our society is based on a division of labor. Isn't it a moot point though? There's a clear consensus that this article should be deleted. It's very unfortunate...but that's just how Wikipedia works...sometimes...too many times...User_talk:Bwilkins#Concentrated_benefits_and_diffuse_costs. Personally, I think the solution is that, given that a division of labor increases productivity, the deletion review process should occur at the relevant projects. --Xerographica (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- That's not how consensus works, and goodness knows that would be a disaster (take the MMA setup, for example...). As people pointed out on the talk page, that essay has absolutely no relevance to whether this article should be kept. And just one properly informed member would be enough to swing a consensus, which is based on policy-based arguments, not vote counts. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- A firm understanding of policy is useless if somebody doesn't have an equally firm understanding of the topic in question. And clearly, based on a complete lack of counter-arguments on the talk page, nobody here has a firm understanding of public economics. Therefore, the outcome of this AFD will simply reflect a lack of relevant knowledge. --Xerographica (talk) 11:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- No, it won't, and no, it doesn't. The thing you put on the talk page is borderline inappropriate, and is irrelevant to this deletion debate anyway. The fact you still fail to see is that this is a combination of two Wikipedia "sins": duplication of other topics, and it will be impossible for this not to violate WP:NPOV. You can make good judgements based on policy without knowledge of a field, as they're generally written well enough for an evaluation to be made. If you want to keep your information about the financial aspects of war, then by all means contribute to the appropriate articles, as, being blunt, this particular one belongs in the bin. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- An article should be deleted because it would be impossible for it not to violate WP:NPOV? LOL. That's ridiculous. Articles don't violate NPOV...editors do. So basically you're saying that this article should be deleted because editors, such as yourself, would not be able to maintain a NPOV. Is there something in the article that currently violates NPOV? If there is...then DIY and correct the deficiency. --Xerographica (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think if you go over that last comment again you might realise that most people here are trying to correct that by advocating for its deletion. There are many issues on this page, so it would be easier just to delete then start over. I am not against this article in principle but it currently reads like an opinionated essay rather than an encyclopedic article, which may put off quite a few people. To summerise the main problems on this page:
- The only useable content is currently a dictionary definition. The lead would have to be expanded to cover more analysis on the phrase for it to pass as an article.
- Most of the sources on the page are biased ones. The phrase itself is not supported by any reliable sources. People will continue to debate whether the term is notable or original research until this happens.
- The term "unnecessary" is contentious because there are many ways one can view it. The fact that it comes just before a list of recent American wars does not help it maintain a neutral point of view. Include more non-American/historical examples with why they were referred to as an "unnecessary war" to balance it out.
- The addition of economics only serves to add more problems to the article rather than support it. The link between economics and "unnecessary war" is not obvious and should be explained. It is not that the majority of people here do not understand economics, but rather how economics relates to the term "unnecessary war".
- Some links in the See also section may not directly relate to the subject and instead infer a point of view. Either explain their relevance in the article or replace them with more relevant links e.g. Cost of conflict and Just war theory
- Try and improve the article addressing the above points. Funny Pika! 17:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- FunnyPika, those are all great and wonderful suggestions, and clearly it's not a mission impossible to build a neutral article on the subject of the main reasons why people perceive a war to be unnecessary. But somehow it strikes me wrong, and against the very idea of a collaborative project, for there to be the expectation for me to do all the heavy lifting of creating a half-way decent article. Clearly the article is going to be deleted...so I moved it over to my subpage...User:Xerographica/Unnecessary_war. You're more than welcome to post your suggestions on the talk page and, if you're so inclined, also more than welcome to make whatever contributions you see fit. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think if you go over that last comment again you might realise that most people here are trying to correct that by advocating for its deletion. There are many issues on this page, so it would be easier just to delete then start over. I am not against this article in principle but it currently reads like an opinionated essay rather than an encyclopedic article, which may put off quite a few people. To summerise the main problems on this page:
- I'm fed up of this, so won't continue the debate, but the majority of people here also agree that this would never be neutral... Lukeno94 (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Xerographic's pretensions of being an academic are funny, in that at least one of his pseudo-articles ostensibly on economics was nominated for deletion by an actual Harvard-educated professor of economics. --Calton | Talk 17:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Which pseudo-article was it? --Xerographica (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Xerographic's pretensions of being an academic are funny, in that at least one of his pseudo-articles ostensibly on economics was nominated for deletion by an actual Harvard-educated professor of economics. --Calton | Talk 17:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- An article should be deleted because it would be impossible for it not to violate WP:NPOV? LOL. That's ridiculous. Articles don't violate NPOV...editors do. So basically you're saying that this article should be deleted because editors, such as yourself, would not be able to maintain a NPOV. Is there something in the article that currently violates NPOV? If there is...then DIY and correct the deficiency. --Xerographica (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- No, it won't, and no, it doesn't. The thing you put on the talk page is borderline inappropriate, and is irrelevant to this deletion debate anyway. The fact you still fail to see is that this is a combination of two Wikipedia "sins": duplication of other topics, and it will be impossible for this not to violate WP:NPOV. You can make good judgements based on policy without knowledge of a field, as they're generally written well enough for an evaluation to be made. If you want to keep your information about the financial aspects of war, then by all means contribute to the appropriate articles, as, being blunt, this particular one belongs in the bin. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- A firm understanding of policy is useless if somebody doesn't have an equally firm understanding of the topic in question. And clearly, based on a complete lack of counter-arguments on the talk page, nobody here has a firm understanding of public economics. Therefore, the outcome of this AFD will simply reflect a lack of relevant knowledge. --Xerographica (talk) 11:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's not how consensus works, and goodness knows that would be a disaster (take the MMA setup, for example...). As people pointed out on the talk page, that essay has absolutely no relevance to whether this article should be kept. And just one properly informed member would be enough to swing a consensus, which is based on policy-based arguments, not vote counts. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Seriously? You're arguing that in any given group of editors...there's going to be a reasonable amount who've read James M. Buchanan and Elinor Ostrom? I WISH! No, your assumption is extremely far-fetched...while mine is based on a firm understanding that our society is based on a division of labor. Isn't it a moot point though? There's a clear consensus that this article should be deleted. It's very unfortunate...but that's just how Wikipedia works...sometimes...too many times...User_talk:Bwilkins#Concentrated_benefits_and_diffuse_costs. Personally, I think the solution is that, given that a division of labor increases productivity, the deletion review process should occur at the relevant projects. --Xerographica (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Bad assumption. You can't assume everyone will go to the talk page... Lukeno94 (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- If an editor who has voted here was even remotely familiar with public economics then they would have replied to my post on this talk page with an informed comment. --Xerographica (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- How do you know that some of the editors here are not economics majors, or experts in the field? "Unnecessary wars" is not an issue, in my eyes, that has ANYTHING to do with economics - to me, that title is to do with morals, and whether one perceives a war has removed a perceived oppression, or not. Any economical aspect in this article is a duplication of the opportunity cost and cost of conflict articles by default, and belongs there. Anything else will almost certainly violate WP:NPOV. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- You bring up a lot of good points. Honestly I didn't even know that there was a cost of conflict article. But there's an article for unused highway and bridge to nowhere...so it didn't seem that much of a stretch, given the numerous reliable sources that have covered the concept, for there to be an article on unnecessary war. From the economic perspective...there's absolutely no difference between an unused highway, a bridge to nowhere and an unnecessary war. It's simply where the government has supplied a greater amount of a public good than the public truly demands. This is a direct result of the preference revelation problem... User:Xerographica/Preference_revelation. Can all this be covered in the cost of conflict article? Sure...just like it can also be covered in the opportunity cost article...and in the article on the parable of the broken window. But, from my perspective, based on a thorough review of public economics...User:Xerographica/Principles of taxation...this topic is certainly notable enough to warrant its own entry. Unfortunately, it seems doomed by a consensus of Wikipedia editors who are not familiar with public economics. So I moved it over to a subpage...User:Xerographica/Unnecessary_war. You're certainly more than welcome to give me a hand developing it. --Xerographica (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- @Xerographica, yes I did take a look at the Talk page to which you linked. The problem as I see it is this: Although the article could (conceivably) be rewritten to satisfy WP:NPOV, the subject matter just isn't sufficiently unique to warrant its existence as a separate article. Some of the arguments made do touch on philosophy (e.g. value of human life). The cost of conflict already discusses some of the economic arguments including the opportunity cost of war. Indeed, cost of conflict would be a good merge destination for some of the material that has been recently added to the article, especially as cost of conflict already has its own subsection entitled "Opportunity Cost". Other relevant articles like antiwar have already been mentioned. Moreover, it also needs to be demonstrated that "unnecessary war" is an established idiom of economics, analogous to "just war" in the context of philosophy. --Mike Agricola (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps philosophy and economics?--S. Rich (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- What are the two distinct issues? --Xerographica (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think you're trying to merge two distinct issues into one extremely subjective topic. I still can't see a verifiable link between the two. Funny Pika! 02:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Do you dispute what I posted on this talk page? --Xerographica (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Even if you were to focus on the economic aspect of wars, you'd have to find some reliable sources to support your claim (for example case studies or research papers). Then find sources linking this to the phrase "unnecessary war". At the moment, I can only see opinion piece references describing wars as unnecessary. Funny Pika! 01:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Xerographica, himself, has not made any pretense about being an academic. And comments in this regard are unfair. Furthermore, they detract from the topic at hand -- whether this article should be deleted. Let's drop this unnecessary and unhelpful PA.-- – S. Rich (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Baloney -- about Xerographica's pretension of knowledge, the claim my statement is a personal attack, AND that it's "unnecessary and unhelpful". Xerographica has -- here and elsewhere -- proclaimed authoritative knowledge AND claimed implicitly and explicitly that others do not have said knowledge. This empty assertion of authority should be highlighted.
- Which pseudo-article was it? I'll let you figure it out. More amusing was your attempt to lecture the aforementioned economics professor on his field during the AFD. --Calton | Talk 12:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- It looks like the consensus is to delete this article (and I wish the discussion would close). But my point is that Xerographica has not claimed he is an academic. He only goes about saying he knows a lot of stuff. In any event, whether his statements are empty assertions of authority, here or in any discussion, does not matter much. Let's simply get this discussion over with. – S. Rich (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Calton, if there was any truth to your claim, then you would have absolutely no problem substantiating it by sharing the "psuedo-article" that you are referring to. --Xerographica (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't have the slightest difficulty with backing up the simple truth of my claim -- and it is straightforwardly factual, so I'll expect your apology after you figure it out -- but perhaps you should be used to dodging proof of claims made (though in my case I have actual facts on my side). But given your crack research skills, it should be child's play, right? Further hint: it's at least TWO pseudo-articles which were nominated for deletion by an actual economist. Even among the pile of your WP:OR quote farms that you've had nuked, that should narrow it down, don't you think?
- But I'll make you a deal: explain 1) where your authority as an economics expert derives; 2) your specific education in economics; 3) how you know, exactly, that this background outweighs all the editors you've proclaimed incompetent (and for which you've been blocked for proclaiming); 4) how you know what the other editors' backgrounds are. Do so, and I'll reveal the really simple fact you don't seem to be able to figure out.
- And Srich32977, has both claimed to know things AND said that no one else is competent to discuss his edits. Including to you. Which is, you know, false. --Calton | Talk 00:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Any "expertise" on my part derives from being interested enough in the articles I edit to actually read the relevant reliable sources. That's it. It's really as simple as that. But because I do make the effort to read what the RS's have to say about the topic...I can easily identify other editors who have not read what the RS's say about the topic. Despite the fact that these other editors have never read a single RS on the topic...they still feel qualified to make substantial content cuts to the article. That's a problem.
- Why would I apologize if you actually substantiated your claim? That makes absolutely no sense. Are you saying that I should apologize to this unknown economist for disagreeing with them? LOL. That's too funny. --Xerographica (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Why would I apologize if you actually substantiated your claim? For your constant -- and pure imaginary -- implication that the simple (and easily checkable) claim is false and for your laziness in making that implication without even the slightest attempt to substantiate it by simply looking at a few user pages. And speaking of which...
- I can easily identify other editors who have not read what the RS's say about the topic. Except that, given that the subject of one of your "identifications" and subsequent snotty lecturing was, in fact, the aforementioned Harvard-educated economics professor, I'd say your psychic powers aren't as reliable as you think they are. In other words, the answer to numbers 3 and 4 is "my imagination".
- But thank you for clarifying: you've mistaken amateur reading for education,: that is, you've never actually tested in any real way what you think you know against what is actually known, which is a basic part of education. It's the sort of thing which leads to garage tinkerers thinking that they've invented perpetual motion machines, and to basic logic fails like this. --Calton | Talk 02:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's your claim...so why should I have to be the one who substantiates it? The burden of proof is on you. Once you provide your proof then I'll look it over and decide for myself whether there's any credibility to the editor's claim. But what difference does it make if the editor truly is a Harvard-educated econ professor? When it comes to content disputes...whether somebody is "right" or "wrong" should be determined by what the RS's have to say about the subject. And thus far, really the only editor that I've interacted with who has shown any real interest in what the RS's have to say about the subject is Thomasmeeks... Talk:Public_choice_theory#Hansj.C3.BCrgens.27_Definition. Pretty much everybody else is far more interested in discussing their opinions on the subject. --Xerographica (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. This is a soapboxing essay on a topic that can never be neutral. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 02:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. This article doesn't even stick to its ostensible topic, but instead switches to editorializing in favor of tax choice (violating neutral point of view). If, somehow, this article manages to get kept, it needs to be revised to avoid systemic bias -- every war that this article suggests may have been an "unnecessary war" is a war that the United States engaged in during the last 65 years. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Funny that. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - I see that the editor is putting a lot of effort to put this article into a encyclopedic format, lets give him/her a break, and see where it goes. So far it is lacking neutrality. It is a delicate subject, but I think that if the editor put some effort into it, I'd even sum up´my effort to the editor's. The subject is clearly notable, it needs to avoid any devise. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 05:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete completely impossible to define. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - regardless of the effort puts in to this subject, or any canvassing going on in here, my vote still stands - as I stated, anyone can argue that all wars (not just war X) are unnecessary, whilst also anyone can state that all wars are indeed necessary. This article will also be highly unlikely to become neutral. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per Buckshot; having an article with this topic is like having an article on 'bad books' or 'Unsuccessful politicans' - it's about a generic viewpoint, and not something which can ever be defined in a sensible or consistent manner. The fact that the article as written is an essay basically illustrates this problem. Nick-D (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Per Buckshot, Bushranger, and Nick-D. Intothatdarkness 15:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The nomination is correct. This article is irredeemable. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Soapboxing quote farm, padded with a bunch of irrelevant "See also" links. Trying to format it as an encyclopedia article makes it as actually encyclopedic in the same way that building a wooden framework would really get you a DC-3. --Calton | Talk 17:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - obviously as a Quaker I consider this term redundant; obviously others would disagree with me. There is no way on earth a NPOV encyclopedia article on this subject could be written. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - silly article that will never be NPOV, whats next? Necessary war?--Staberinde (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete, see WP:NOTESSAY or WP:NOTSOAPBOX.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's not a "Speedy" reason. Perhaps it should be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - Would the Opt Out of Iraq War Act have been neutral content for the unnecessary war article? --Xerographica (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Probably not. Still no real indication that the war is/was "unnecessary" as a statement of fact. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete 100% SYNTH, OR, POV, and SOAPBOX. SPECIFICO talk 01:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - maybe this should be closed as a Snow Delete? Lukeno94 (talk) 09:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I think the deletion arguments in fact illustrate uneasiness with the article's title, which indeed contains an implicit opinion. It should rather have been called "Necessity of War". This is indeed a notable philosophical issue that has been debated for millenia (Plato devoted a book to it). This article should contain a summary of various notable opinions on the issue. At most it should be renamed. The topic is adjacent to Bellum iustum but is distinct from it. Imperfection does not mean the debate does not exist. Alfy32 (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- That would be a good argument for Delete. There's nothing in any revision of this article which should be there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Seven days have elapsed since this AfD was initiated. Dear non-involved administrator -- please close this discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 merge to Glassheart. no convincing argument, including significant coverage, was made to support WP:NSONG J04n(talk page) 11:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Come Alive (Leona Lewis song)[edit]
- Come Alive (Leona Lewis song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Song was not released as a single, never charted, and has no sources discussing it in depth as required for a stand alone article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - Has been performed several times and has a lot of information about it. 24 reliable and well used sources as well. Considering the staple it has been in promotion for the album, it is likely to become a single. To be honest, this whole thing about not being a single/never charted is becoming tiresome and redundant now. There are a lot of song articles by other singer's where the situation is exactly the same. If the song hadn't of been performed live at all I might have simply posted this is a comment, but as it has had significant coverage as part of promotion it is a keep from me. There is too much information here to condense down into Glassheart. The article is clearly informational and is more than a stub with next to no sources. — AARON • TALK 11:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- You can likewise argue that at the DYK nomination, where the issue of notability has been a concern — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- The notability lies in its 5 live performances. Non singles rarely get performed live 5 times on TV. — AARON • TALK 11:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Don't see that in the guidelines. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's not, but it should be. It's stupid saying that articles can only exist if it chart or received an award (says nothing about being a single or not). Some articles on here haven't ever been performed live or charted or received an award and still exist. People have too much time on their hands. This article clearly demonstrates clear and good information for people, why delete it? — AARON • TALK 11:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. I think it passes WP:GNG and as such meets WP:NSONG criterion 1. –anemoneprojectors– 13:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Per the live performances sections. Five times performed on TV is notable enough for a song article to exist on Wikipedia. Also agree with AnemoneProjectors. — Tomíca(T2ME) 13:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Agreed with the above. It seems to have established its notability through live performance. It also has a fair amount of reception and information about the song's production. In addition, it could also become a single and chart. Charting =/= creating an article. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 15:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Merge to album. Looking at the sources presented in the article I don't see how it passes GNG ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). Don't see how a live performance of a song makes it notable either, unless it leads to coverage under the GNG.
- No mention of the song [26][27][28][29][30][31][32]
- Brief mention along with another song [33]
- Album review that mentions the song five words short paragraph (every other song gets one too) three sentences, sentence fragmentsentence fragment
- Just listed in a list [34][35][36]
- There are four videos [37][38][39][40] used in the article, which I have not examined (do not wish to watch them all for a mention of this song - but if you give me a time I may look at that part), although most appear to be primary sources anyway.
- Looking at the current sources I say that it should be merged into the album Glassheart AIRcorn (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- "This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews." It meets this part, and it only needs to meet one of the four. — AARON • TALK 18:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work." — AARON • TALK 21:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- An example please. I have gone through all of them listed in the article and given the source I think best meets this requirement. It is not the subject and even if it was it is only one work (i.e. fails the multiple part). In every other source the mention is trivial. AIRcorn (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Note: The notability guideline for songs is currently being discussed, and changes are being suggested on its talk page. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- That seems to be a discussion regarding removing or devaluing the chart criteria, so is probably not relevant to this debate. AIRcorn (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - kinda a IAR Keep from me, but appearing 5 times on TV seems notable to me (as a non-single), and the article itself seems very well written and uses a handful of other refs that refer to the song, either in passing or in slightly more detail. In conjunction with the changes being made to the NSONGS guideline, I'd say leave this for now, and maybe come back to AfD again if the guideline doesn't change, or doesn't affect the article. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keeep, despite not being release or charted it has received quite a fair bit of coverage both as part of the album and separate from the album. I created the page in an effort to help reduce the information on the parent album's page where people have complained that the article is getting to the stage where its slow to load due to the volume of information which is relatively high quality. It passed WP:GNG and it has been performed live several times at major events. The performance of the song received coverage as did it's composition. Per WP:NSONGS there is notability criteria which this article passes number one. Additionally the guideline states " a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" which also applies here. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- How did it pass GNG? Just saying it does does not make it true. Just give me one article that gives it significant coverage and I will be happy to say keep. I don't even think a WP:Split keep is reasonable. The background is obviously already covered in the album article and if you paraphrased the quotes you should quite easily fit the last three in (some of it is already present). AIRcorn (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- I am actually baffled as to what policy you (and others here) are citing by pointing to live performances as evidence of notability. This is just some made-up theory to have this article kept for all the wrong reasons, such as WP:ITSUSEFUL. Till 01:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- How did it pass GNG? Just saying it does does not make it true. Just give me one article that gives it significant coverage and I will be happy to say keep. I don't even think a WP:Split keep is reasonable. The background is obviously already covered in the album article and if you paraphrased the quotes you should quite easily fit the last three in (some of it is already present). AIRcorn (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Merge. Where is the significant coverage??? Sources 1-7 are about the album/her past career. Sources 9-10 are liner notes. Source 11 contains one tiny line about this song, "the ticky breakbeats (Come Alive)". Source 12 contains three short sentences and nothing substantial. Source 13 is from Leona herself and therefore doesn't count. Source 14 contains the line ""I don't mind the pain," she confesses on 'Come Alive' over rumbling synths and breakbeats"... not significant in the slightest. Source 15 doesn't even mention "Come Alive". Source 16 has this: "but there's the obligatory drift into dubstep on Come Alive". The rest of the sources are from iTunes, Youtube, or other websites with no significant coverage. Till 00:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Also. WP:NSONG makes no mention of a song being performed live as an indicator of notability. Till 00:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Source 13 is from musicrooms.net, not leonalewismusic.com. –anemoneprojectors– 13:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- He means it's from her words, so it's irrelevant. Also, ref 13 should be replaced with this, as music rooms doesn't seem reliable. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- The sources, Music Rooms and Digital Spy, are both independent of Leona Lewis. –anemoneprojectors– 15:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- He means it's from her words, so it's irrelevant. Also, ref 13 should be replaced with this, as music rooms doesn't seem reliable. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Source 13 is from musicrooms.net, not leonalewismusic.com. –anemoneprojectors– 13:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Also. WP:NSONG makes no mention of a song being performed live as an indicator of notability. Till 00:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to album. Aircorn's analysis of sources is correct and being performed live is not a convincing indicator of notability. Cavarrone (talk) 12:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. The article has a lot of references and well-cited for an album track. As long as there is enough material to show, keep it. --SuperHotWiki (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- We don't keep articles based on their amount of references, we keep articles if its topic meets notability. And this one doesn't have any. Till 07:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Till, as long as it meets one of the four guidelines, it can stay: "Has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work." It meets this one. — AARON • TALK 12:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- with respect Aaron days ago you were asked to provide exemples of multiple and non-trivial coverage about this song to rebut Aircorn's (and Till's) analysis of sources. Repeating again and again what the guideline says without providing evidences of how notability is met in this specific case is not a great argument. Cavarrone (talk) 12:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Because other people have provided it. — AARON • TALK 12:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oh where? Could you be more specific? Cavarrone (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Read this page and you will find out. Or, try reading the article and looking at the sources. — AARON • TALK 14:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, your evasive non-response is pretty enlightening. Thank you. Cavarrone (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- No, it's called being pro-active and doing it yourself. — AARON • TALK 12:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's called inability to provide evidences for claims. Cavarrone (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Why do I have to do as you say? I'm familiar with this article, I know what exists. You don't to know, then you look yourself, then maybe you would have a valid point here. You don't want to look because you don't want to find anything. End of. — AARON • TALK 15:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Obviously I read both this discussion and the article and there is no sign of significant coverage, as I wrote in my vote's rationale. Others editors analyzed one by one every single reference listed in the article. As you insist in saying that this song received significant coverage, you were asked by three editors to show us some exemples and you refuse it. Your childish non-answers just make it patent that this coverage does not exist. Cavarrone (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- So if you've done it already what are you asking me for? It's obvious from the size of the article that there is a lot of information about it. I've been through the article myself as well. If this song had charted you wouldn't have a problem with it (even though charting is not a requirement, which many people mistake it for). — AARON • TALK 16:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Obviously I read both this discussion and the article and there is no sign of significant coverage, as I wrote in my vote's rationale. Others editors analyzed one by one every single reference listed in the article. As you insist in saying that this song received significant coverage, you were asked by three editors to show us some exemples and you refuse it. Your childish non-answers just make it patent that this coverage does not exist. Cavarrone (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Why do I have to do as you say? I'm familiar with this article, I know what exists. You don't to know, then you look yourself, then maybe you would have a valid point here. You don't want to look because you don't want to find anything. End of. — AARON • TALK 15:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's called inability to provide evidences for claims. Cavarrone (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- No, it's called being pro-active and doing it yourself. — AARON • TALK 12:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, your evasive non-response is pretty enlightening. Thank you. Cavarrone (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Read this page and you will find out. Or, try reading the article and looking at the sources. — AARON • TALK 14:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oh where? Could you be more specific? Cavarrone (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Because other people have provided it. — AARON • TALK 12:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- with respect Aaron days ago you were asked to provide exemples of multiple and non-trivial coverage about this song to rebut Aircorn's (and Till's) analysis of sources. Repeating again and again what the guideline says without providing evidences of how notability is met in this specific case is not a great argument. Cavarrone (talk) 12:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Till, as long as it meets one of the four guidelines, it can stay: "Has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work." It meets this one. — AARON • TALK 12:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- We don't keep articles based on their amount of references, we keep articles if its topic meets notability. And this one doesn't have any. Till 07:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect The article appears to have many sources, but most are either non-RS or only mention the song trivially in passing. Also, regardless of what others have claimed, being played live on TV does not make a song notable. LK (talk) 10:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep – I've added two more sources to the "critical reception" section just now to the many that were already there. There's not a single source that address the subject in depth, but there are many sources that offer brief, non-trivial coverage, and taken together there is enough to meet WP:N guidelines. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 14:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- I guess it comes down to the definition of trivial. Both of the new sources are album reviews with half a sentence mentions of this song. If this is the minimum requirement for a song to have an article then I feel there will not be many songs that will not meet it. AIRcorn (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- ... the implication being that what I added to the article was "trivia". I don't think it was. I expanded the "critical reception" section, which is fairly standard for song articles. As for the question of "there will not be many songs that will not meet it", I don't think that's even true for most of the songs on this very album (and Leona Lewis is rather popular and widely written about): I did multiple searches for "Leona Lewis" + "When It Hurts" (a track on the album) and there was just one very brief mention in a Billboard review, not enough for a standalone article in that case. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 12:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Those additions are certainly not significant coverage. Till 06:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that if those were the only sources then that would not be enough to meet the requirements of WP:N. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Significant coverage means that a topic is significantly discussed in multiple, reliable sources. It does not refer to a topic that is briefly mentioned in multiple sources which is then added up together. Till 11:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that if those were the only sources then that would not be enough to meet the requirements of WP:N. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Those additions are certainly not significant coverage. Till 06:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- ... the implication being that what I added to the article was "trivia". I don't think it was. I expanded the "critical reception" section, which is fairly standard for song articles. As for the question of "there will not be many songs that will not meet it", I don't think that's even true for most of the songs on this very album (and Leona Lewis is rather popular and widely written about): I did multiple searches for "Leona Lewis" + "When It Hurts" (a track on the album) and there was just one very brief mention in a Billboard review, not enough for a standalone article in that case. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 12:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- I guess it comes down to the definition of trivial. Both of the new sources are album reviews with half a sentence mentions of this song. If this is the minimum requirement for a song to have an article then I feel there will not be many songs that will not meet it. AIRcorn (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- comment there's been quite a few independent editors who've commented here that this album passes WP:GNG. User:Till has rebuked almost every keep comment and that's why this has dragged on. Seriously can we put this to rest. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 19:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- I would say it was probably relisted because the keep arguments are not that strong. Apart from Paul Erik they have just said that it passes the criteria without explaining how it does. AIRcorn (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- not being bias but i've seen plenty of recent AfDs close based purely on the number of keeps/merges/deleted. But I guess that's more a discussion about the process rather than this particular article. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- So have I. I would not have been surprised if this had been closed as no consensus. AIRcorn (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- I was expecting a closure, not a relisting - the AFDs I see relisted are the ones with few or no comments. This one has loads. –anemoneprojectors– 22:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Afd is a weighing of consensus based on policy, regardless of how many people !voted keep. There are a plethora of reasons: a) "It was performed live"—a performance is a primary source, and quite frankly I am baffled as to how a performance would constitute significant coverage unless there was some sort of independent commentary. Therefore any !vote based on this reason would probably be discounted. b) It meets WP:GNG—The topic does not meet the GNG, as shown by the indepth analysis of the sources provided above. We have trivial mentions at best but nothing of "significant coverage", which is what GNG requires. The fact that editors can't find even one reliable source that significantly discusses this topic pretty much proves to me that this fails WP:N. c) It has lots of references—this isn't a convincing argument as none of these sources have the required amount of coverage to meet WP:N. Also @lilunique: you stated that the song meets GNG in your !vote, but when you were asked how it does, you couldn't even provide 1 decent reason. So don't complain about how this was relisted when you can't even address simple nomination concerns. Till 00:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- I was expecting a closure, not a relisting - the AFDs I see relisted are the ones with few or no comments. This one has loads. –anemoneprojectors– 22:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- So have I. I would not have been surprised if this had been closed as no consensus. AIRcorn (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- not being bias but i've seen plenty of recent AfDs close based purely on the number of keeps/merges/deleted. But I guess that's more a discussion about the process rather than this particular article. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- I would say it was probably relisted because the keep arguments are not that strong. Apart from Paul Erik they have just said that it passes the criteria without explaining how it does. AIRcorn (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- comment there's been quite a few independent editors who've commented here that this album passes WP:GNG. User:Till has rebuked almost every keep comment and that's why this has dragged on. Seriously can we put this to rest. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 19:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- It wasn't a complaint I was just surprised to see it being re-listed. My keep vote contained a detailed ration. "Come Alive" has received coverage from multiple reliable sources both as a song on the album and as part of the album during reviews etc. It was performed several times which also received coverage and both the artist and critics spoke about the song a number of times. Per WP:NSONGS there is enough information from reliable third-party sources (which means not the artist's website, label etc) to produce a reasonable detailed article about the song and I also pointed out that given the relative size of the album's article there is sufficient scope to remove some of the information about the song. This latter bit has already been done. People are making their own interpretations of WP:GNG in this discussion. GNG does not state one source which discusses a subject for at length is more notable than multiple sources that discuss the subject in minute chunks. The way I look at it is, the song was performed several times thus giving people to a reason to search for it, there is significant information about its recording and production meaning an article can be constructed to cover lots of aspects about the song, and the album's page is already quite large so that would suggest that some independent articles might be required. Applying that to WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS the article at the moment is reasonably well detailed. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 13:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think there is a bigger problem here in that many editors claiming GNG do not understand what it means. For example you are saying that "GNG does not state one source which discusses a subject for at length is more notable than multiple sources that discuss the subject in minute chunks", which is wrong. Right at the top of WP:GNG it says that the coverage must be "significant" and then goes on to explain that this "is more than a trivial mention". In this case the debate comes down to whether album reviews that briefly mention the song are considered non-trivial. The guidelines at WP:NSONGS are even stricter as it says it must be the "subject" of these sources. So far only Paul Erik has really addressed the trivial issue in his keep comment. AIRcorn (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Digital Spy 1 mentions the song was performed live and talks about its composition and origins, the album booklet details the recording information and personnel, Album Preview mentions the song in two sentences and talks about its production, here we find out that Faithless inspired the song and some more about the production, in this review the lyrics and production are commented on, and in this one once again the production is commented on. These sources especially qualify as non-trivial IMO. Finally the song was performed at Radio 1's Hackney Weekend, at a charity concert, on a national radio station and an acoustic performance was uploaded to her Vevo account. Whilst I agree that no single source covers the topic in heaps of detail, collectively there is coverage amongst all the sources (synergy) that produce a reasonably detailed article that covers both the conception and promotion of the song as a track from the album. If you compare page views for January, it was viewed 1,936 times, compared to Glassheart (song) (the other non-single from this album; though that one charted] which was viewed 2,419 times. Only around 500 views behind, I know page views aren't really an official factor for consideration but I do believe they put the article in context. We have NMUSIC for the exact reason that GNG can sometimes cause issues, its mention of "non-trivial coverage" throws things into disrepute in examples like this one where there is actually a reasonably detailed article constructed from coverage in multiple sources. Also if you read NSONGS, under the note for "subject of" it explains that subject of excludes mere mention of the song/single, in the examples above coverage goes beyond simply mentioning the song. It provides some information which is of detail/background. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 23:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Now that is a much better argument. Much, much better than simply asserting that it meets GNG. I felt I was one of the only editors that actually looked closely at the sources. I still disagree, but at least you have provided a line of thought that shows how you think it is notable and used examples of sources to back it up. AIRcorn (talk) 05:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Really @lilnique.... that seems to contradict with your statements here and here. He/she explicitly said "the critical reception comments are part of wider album reviews and could be merged to the album's page", but no, that's definitely not the case here. I wonder why..... Till 04:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Till you really should stop being bitter because two of your GA articles got sent to AfD and the outcome was merge into the album. It was nothing personal and I stand by the fact that I didnt show bias. There is much less coverage for the two songs whcih you worked on. "Come Alive" has quite a bit of coverage as the main subject of a reference (i.e. articles specifically about "Come Alive" or mentioning "Come Alive" as a seperate body of work. It was performed multiple times, even at least once before the album came out. There is a more wider-ranging detailed article about "Come Alive" covering a greater scope of background about the song. Also you seem to consistantly skirt over the fact it was recommended that you create a section about the songs on Sweet 7 and that Glassheart is already a large page, thus concerted effort has been made to remove information about "Come Alive" as it was felt there was enough information instead to make an independent detailed article. You should also pipe down with the uncivilness, wikipedia advocates you be critical of the edits not the editor. Calling me a "hypocritcal fool" in the edit summary makes you come across as bitter. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 11:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't care about Heartbreak or Mess (I even changed my vote to merge). My problem is the double standards being applied here. If you don't want to be called that, don't act like it. Btw, it's incivility not 'uncivility'—not that it was, because I am stating a fact Till 14:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Till you really should stop being bitter because two of your GA articles got sent to AfD and the outcome was merge into the album. It was nothing personal and I stand by the fact that I didnt show bias. There is much less coverage for the two songs whcih you worked on. "Come Alive" has quite a bit of coverage as the main subject of a reference (i.e. articles specifically about "Come Alive" or mentioning "Come Alive" as a seperate body of work. It was performed multiple times, even at least once before the album came out. There is a more wider-ranging detailed article about "Come Alive" covering a greater scope of background about the song. Also you seem to consistantly skirt over the fact it was recommended that you create a section about the songs on Sweet 7 and that Glassheart is already a large page, thus concerted effort has been made to remove information about "Come Alive" as it was felt there was enough information instead to make an independent detailed article. You should also pipe down with the uncivilness, wikipedia advocates you be critical of the edits not the editor. Calling me a "hypocritcal fool" in the edit summary makes you come across as bitter. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 11:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Really @lilnique.... that seems to contradict with your statements here and here. He/she explicitly said "the critical reception comments are part of wider album reviews and could be merged to the album's page", but no, that's definitely not the case here. I wonder why..... Till 04:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Now that is a much better argument. Much, much better than simply asserting that it meets GNG. I felt I was one of the only editors that actually looked closely at the sources. I still disagree, but at least you have provided a line of thought that shows how you think it is notable and used examples of sources to back it up. AIRcorn (talk) 05:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Digital Spy 1 mentions the song was performed live and talks about its composition and origins, the album booklet details the recording information and personnel, Album Preview mentions the song in two sentences and talks about its production, here we find out that Faithless inspired the song and some more about the production, in this review the lyrics and production are commented on, and in this one once again the production is commented on. These sources especially qualify as non-trivial IMO. Finally the song was performed at Radio 1's Hackney Weekend, at a charity concert, on a national radio station and an acoustic performance was uploaded to her Vevo account. Whilst I agree that no single source covers the topic in heaps of detail, collectively there is coverage amongst all the sources (synergy) that produce a reasonably detailed article that covers both the conception and promotion of the song as a track from the album. If you compare page views for January, it was viewed 1,936 times, compared to Glassheart (song) (the other non-single from this album; though that one charted] which was viewed 2,419 times. Only around 500 views behind, I know page views aren't really an official factor for consideration but I do believe they put the article in context. We have NMUSIC for the exact reason that GNG can sometimes cause issues, its mention of "non-trivial coverage" throws things into disrepute in examples like this one where there is actually a reasonably detailed article constructed from coverage in multiple sources. Also if you read NSONGS, under the note for "subject of" it explains that subject of excludes mere mention of the song/single, in the examples above coverage goes beyond simply mentioning the song. It provides some information which is of detail/background. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 23:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think there is a bigger problem here in that many editors claiming GNG do not understand what it means. For example you are saying that "GNG does not state one source which discusses a subject for at length is more notable than multiple sources that discuss the subject in minute chunks", which is wrong. Right at the top of WP:GNG it says that the coverage must be "significant" and then goes on to explain that this "is more than a trivial mention". In this case the debate comes down to whether album reviews that briefly mention the song are considered non-trivial. The guidelines at WP:NSONGS are even stricter as it says it must be the "subject" of these sources. So far only Paul Erik has really addressed the trivial issue in his keep comment. AIRcorn (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Merge to Glassheart, per WP:GNG. The coverage is not
more than a trivial mention
.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] Consideration of stand-alone existence (as a split from the album) is not solely limited to the WP:SIZERULE - however, that's close in this case (37 kB, 6329 words "readable prose size" for Glassheart)... but independent notability isn't established. -- Trevj (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)- I'm including the refs as an aid to qualifying my !vote: the article includes a number of refs, many of which are not relevant to establishing notability. Additionally,
45 new refs are included (which still don't contribute adequately either IMO, even though the 4Music one does address the subject directly, it doesn't do so in detail). Please don't remove refs from here unless a policy can be cited which explains why they shouldn't be included. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 05:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm including the refs as an aid to qualifying my !vote: the article includes a number of refs, many of which are not relevant to establishing notability. Additionally,
- Merge and redirect to Glassheart. The article spends a lot of time discussing the album, as opposed to the song itself; so the amount of information needed to be merged into Glassheart is substantially lower. As per Till's argument of WP:GNG, the references used in the article refer to the song in its context as part of the album and not in its own right.
iComputerSaysNo 23:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Firstly, five of the sentences in background talk solely about the album, while the rest are about the song. Secondly, how realistic is a merge? The Glassheart article is already 116kb and this article was created to, as Lil-unique already stated, split the information into a stand-alone article, as the album article was getting way to large. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- What about the "readable prose size", easily confirmed using User:Dr pda/prosesize? I make that 37 kB, per my comment above. -- Trevj (talk) 07:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's not about how big the article currently is, it's about whether this song is notable enough to have a standalone article away from the parent album, which it isn't Till 07:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Disagree, whilst no single reference makes explicit length mention of the song, collectively coverage is relatively detailed. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 12:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't see coverage which wasn't more than a trivial mention. Even the single source I found which directly addresses the subject only says that Lewis
premiered a new track called Come Alive at the Hackney Weekender, surprising crowds with its dubstep direction.
I admit to not really analysing the video sources; do they take a similar approach to the written sources, i.e. do they include some coverage of the song, as just one part of a longer piece? Or do they amount to less trivial mentions? I would expect that most of the other merge !voters probably accept that this song has the potential to meet our notability requirements... IMHO it just doesn't do so right now, per WP:TOOSOON. -- Trevj (talk) 12:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't see coverage which wasn't more than a trivial mention. Even the single source I found which directly addresses the subject only says that Lewis
- Firstly, five of the sentences in background talk solely about the album, while the rest are about the song. Secondly, how realistic is a merge? The Glassheart article is already 116kb and this article was created to, as Lil-unique already stated, split the information into a stand-alone article, as the album article was getting way to large. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
References
- ^ http://hplfilmfestival.com/2010/portland/guests/wilum-hopfrog-pugmire
- ^ Leona Lewis discusses new tracks at Hackney Weekend - Music News - Digital Spy
- ^ BBC - Music - Review of Leona Lewis - Glassheart
- ^ Leona Lewis new album 'Glassheart': First listen - Music News - Digital Spy
- ^ Leona Lewis inspired by Faithless | Musicrooms.net
- ^ Leona Lewis: 'Faithless inspired new album Glassheart' - Music News - Digital Spy
- ^ Leona Lewis: 'Glassheart' - Album review - Music Album Review - Digital Spy
- ^ Leona Lewis: Glassheart Album Review - Reviews - Music - Virgin Media
- ^ Leona Lewis: Glassheart – review | Music | The Guardian
- ^ Leona Lewis's Glassheart - The National
- ^ Leona Lewis At Hackney
- ^ Good, but playing safe | Daily Post (Liverpool)
- ^ Crítica - "Glassheart" - de Leona Lewis
- ^ Scherben-Risiko: Beats gefährden Leonas Herz aus Glas
- ^ RECENZE: Leona Lewis se na Glassheart posouvá vpřed jen po-ma-lu
- ^ Leona Lewis premieres album track Come Alive | 4Music
- 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.