Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frédéric Chopin—Fantaisie-Impromptu in C-sharp minor, Op. 66

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 and Userfy to User:Zhouf12/Frédéric Chopin—Fantaisie-Impromptu in C-sharp minor, Op. 66 per Deor. Black Kite 11:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frédéric Chopin—Fantaisie-Impromptu in C-sharp minor, Op. 66[edit]

Fork of Fantaisie-Impromptu (may not technically be a fork, but definitely a duplicate of an existing article). SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, Sarek, you are completely correct to use the word 'Fork'. I am guessing that the ad nauseum use of 'Fork' to label things as PoV and therefore deletable (when PoV can be replaced and is therefore a page discussion issue and not an AfD issue) has lead you to believe that Fork is not the right appellation. It is, moreso than in most cases where the word is used. That an article is duplicated is the proper definition of a fork. Well, to be utterly precise, a fork is a mirror site outside of wikipedia, that duplicates WP content, and "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject." and "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines" Because of the 'deliberate' language, POVFORK says "Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing. Instead, apply Wikipedia's policy that requires a neutral point of view: regardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view. It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance, or that its creators mistakenly claimed ownership over it." Sorry if I am taking up a lot of space discussing things no one here, to my knowledge, ever said, but this misuse of terminology in AfD is a pox and the cure will doubtless be messy. Anarchangel (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, when I said that I didn't think "fork" applied, I meant that I thought they had started that article without prior reference to the original, not that there were POV issues involved.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the two articles. Nominator and article creator seem to be in some type of edit-war [1]. I hasten to point out that nobody owns a Wikipedia article. Mandsford (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me? He did a cut-paste move, and I reverted it. Since when does one edit on each side constitute "edit warring"?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to think Sarek is correct in his assessment of the title of the article, but he is being less than fully forthcoming when he describes the history as a single edit. The truth should suffice. Anarchangel (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would really like to see some documentation of this supposed "edit war", or I'd like this section stricken. Either one will do nicely. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I think you're not getting, Sarek, is that he already gave evidence of it. If that is the case, then please excuse my comments as a little off the mark. It's the history from the old article. You've got three edits in there. 18:57, 10 June, 15:59, 19 June, and 12:53, 13 July. That's all. No big. Just the fact of, the thing he is calling attention to isn't just the one edit on the new article. Anarchangel (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the first two edits have exactly what to do with the creator of the other article?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having reviewed the article histories of both the the afd'd article and original article, I can see no evidence of edit warring. Sarek has made four edits to both articles in total. [2] this first edit was a page move. Unrelated to the new article. [3] this second edit was the removal of links to add supported pages. [4] This single and only edit was the reversion of a redirect to this afd'd article. No reversion followed, therefore no edit war occured. The only edit following on from that was [5] which was the listing of this afd. Sarek has been incorrectly accused of edit warring and I do ask that the parties involved here than have made such accusations retract them. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 18:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Anarchangel (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since this has a single author, delete and provide the author with a copy so that s/he can add anything sourcable (article currently has no sources) and usable to Fantaisie-Impromptu. The article's creator wrote, "I felt that [the article Fantaisie-Impromptu] is not titled adequately, and that the content is lacking. Rather than editing that page, I decided to start a new page," which is a good description of how not to act when faced with an existing article that one thinks needs work. This title violates Wikipedia:Naming conventions (pieces of music) and is useless as a redirect; that, combined with the lack of sources, makes a straight merger an undesirable result. Deor (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Deor. In terms of content I don't strongly prefer one article over the other, except that this one lacks sources. But there's no reason why this work should be an exception to our established naming conventions. I hope editors can cooperate to improve Fantaisie-Impromptu. ReverendWayne (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Fantaisie-Impromptu. Although the unsourced content is an issue with this article, looking for sources (and adding where available, deleting content that can't be sourced) for non-redundant content can occur on the merged article. Rlendog (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Deor, with the qualification WP:NEWCOMER. Content and content providers should always take precedent over even WP rules as per WP:IAR, and definitely over our use of them. Anarchangel (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete move anything new back to original article, help the creator to edit the original, and delete this one that doesn't pass a whole whack of policy (including the title, methinks) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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