|
United World Chart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))
United World Chart article was deleted by the following reason: the chart is not used by any mainstrean media or artist, so it is not notable. That's wrong. United World Chart is cited by:
And many more. Netrat (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Comment The German WP considered the article for deletion and kept it [1] ; the French WP considered it and deleted it.[2] (see Harro's comment in our AfD discussion regarding the deWP rationale--they kept it to explain why thy did not use their rankings in their articles) Besides Forbes, it seems to be used by MSNBC and CBS (see the GN link for forbes). Publicists will of course use whatever they can find. Personally, though not my subject of expertise, I find it strange that it is not referred to at all in Billboardrd's web site. DGG (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing strange about it. UWC and Billboard are competitors, right? Netrat (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is this only being brought to DRV now? The AFD above was last April. Stifle (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the AFD took place in June. And I don't see anything wrong with bringing an article to DRV if the review is based on the idea that there is more evidence in support of the subject's notability not previously considered. But see below. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Cause I didn't see this before yesterday Netrat (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Use of the chart by mainstrean media and artists should be cited in the mainstrean media and artists articles, not in United World Chart. An article about the United World Chart would include a chronological history of the United World Chart. Now, if you have reliable source material that writes about the United World Chart, e.g., The United World Chart was first published in xxx to fill the need xxx. Since its first publication, it has grown into xxx and xxx, please list it here. -- Suntag ☼ 20:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am probablly not getting you right. The reason to delete UWC article was "UWC is not notable enough, since UWC is not used by any mainstrean media or artist". As you can see, that's not true. Netrat (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Two things here. First, endorse the AfD closure as fully correct; the keep arguments were weak and generally not persuasive, and no reliable sources were offered during the discussion. Second, feel free to recreate the article if you believe that you can write a version that will not have the same failings as the AfD'd version. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete arguments ("not notable" - which is false and "the chart is not reliable aka fake" - does not matter at all) were just as weak. Plus I don't think I can write such article from the scratch Netrat (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you'd like, I'd be happy to userfy it for you as a starting point. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion but allow re-creation if a better version can be written per Lifebaka. Of the five sources cited by the original poster, three are definitely press releases, the Forbes cite appears to be a press release, and the Belfast Telegraph cite only refers to the UWC in one sentence to demonstrate the popularity of a musical group. None appear to discuss the UWC per se. The kind of sources I would like to see if the article were re-created would be articles from independent, reliable sources that discuss the United World Chart itself -- who runs it, how it is calculated, and how it is used in the music industry. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't understand it. Links I provided were only to demonstrate the UWC is used by media and artists, UWC is popular, and thus notable. I'm not suggesting using these documents as sources! Netrat (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand the references you have made in this review to the idea that the article was deleted because the UWC is not used by any mainstream media or artist. That idea did not even come up in the deletion discussion, as you can see at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United World Chart. I have temporarily restored the article so we can see what it looked like as of the end of that AfD discussion, but I would have to say that independent reliable sources were either few or nonexistent in the article at that time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've moved it to my userspace so I can work on re-writing the article, is it OK? Feel free to delete the redirect from mainspace, as I can clearly see the lack of support for restoring of that particular version. Netrat (talk) 03:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse but allow recreation per lifebaka. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What was wrong with the old article anyway? Netrat (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a discussion about the old article; it's a discussion about whether the deletion discussion was closed properly. It was. Stifle (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait. Isn't this discussion is to decide if the article should be undeleted or no? Netrat (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is indeed. But Deletion Review is limited to considering whether the deletion process was followed properly. Consideration of the article isn't in scope. Stifle (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse but allow recreation as per lifebaka and Suntag. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What was wrong with the old article anyway? Netrat (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume from AfD discussion that the only problem with the article was the notability of its subject, right? Netrat (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure. From what I understand, certain charts have to be receognized by the IFPI, which the UWC is not. Therefore, it's an unofficial chart that, for all we know, could have its positions determined by a randomizer. Furthermore, there are absolutely no sources pertaining to when the UWC was begun, what its focus is (for instance, how is it that the Eagles only have one hit on this chart?), The sources cited above don't cut it, and everyone has yet to turn up a reliable source that is not trivial or a press release. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) What sources support your idea that charts must be licensed? 2) Even is charts have to be licensed, it does not menan UWC is not notable just because it is not license. The subject is notable if it has good coverage in reliable sources, right? Plus media we are useing as reliable sources do you UWC as well... Netrat (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The sources cited above don't cut it" - what sources are you referring to? Netrat (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure. There are multiple problems with the page. First, 90% of it is devoted to chart stats, not about the chart itself. Second, as per the initial nomination, no independent reliable sources prove its notability. Third, reliability is a problem, as it's a somewhat arbitrary system of ranking. As I noted in the deletion discussion, their page clearly states that points for an album can be raised if there are "hugh [sic] sales", and they can get additional points from countries that have no official chart by being on the rest of the charts (so there are assumptions there). Songs use airplay and songs in addition to data that doesn't rely on airplay and songs (for example, chart TV shows that rely on votes), so it's inconsistent. And User:Netrat, the reason for deletion was not simply because there was no independent coverage. If you read the deletion discussion in full, a variety of users have brought up these multiple issues (and more). Even if every single artist and group used UWC data, there would still have to be independent sources stating that it's a legitimate, notable chart. Like, the only parallel I can think of is if every single sports star recommended Red Bull because it really enchances stamina, that doesn't mean that we automatically buy their word. We would look to see if there was research done to prove that fact. The same applies here. (And echoing earlier sentiments, most of the links posted previously seem to be PR pieces, or have PR pieces quoted.) SKS2K6 (talk) 06:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close; keep deleted. It was properly closed after a long and vigorous AfD discussion. Waiting four months before DRV and treating it as "son of AfD" seems shady at worst and disingenuous at best. People who want a new United World Chart article should start a new article in userspace and address every single issue brought by the "delete" comments, cite the stuffing out of all of them, and then - and only then - would a recreation should be considered. B.Wind (talk) 06:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure. Non notable and unofficial chart. Needs non-trivial coverage. Tosqueira (talk) 23:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
