3 CD Collector's Set (Rihanna album) – Overturn from keep to no consensus. Although it has no immediate functional impact for the article, this determination should be weighted when considering future merging/relisting discussions. – IronGargoyle (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This debate was closed as keep by WilyD (talk·contribs) with 4 delete !votes, 1 merge !vote and 5 delete !votes. However, many of the delete votes were not policy-driven and most complied with WP:NOTAGAIN and other arguments to avoid. There was not consensus to keep this article, especially as the first AfD resulted in delete and the previous AfD drew no consensus. SplashScreen (talk) 12:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
there have been three AfDs. the first in September 2010 attracted minimal comments, both negative, & the article was deleted; the second, in May 2012, attracted mixed comments and was reasonably closed as non-consensus; this third attracted the same comments as in May, I might have closed as non-consensus, but it would probably have led to a third AfD right now which would also probably have given inconclusive results. This is not my usual subject, but it seems from the discussion there are two incompatible positions: On the keep side, it charted, which is the basic criterion as WP:MUSIC; on the delete, it's just a repackaging of 3 albums in one retail box which might seem by common sense worth a note, not an article. By analogy, the BOOKS guideline, though broad, wants more significant best seller status than "charted"; such repackaging would not have been kept as a set of books. Nor can I see anything similar kept in any other medium. As an outsider, I see this as an indication we need to be a little more subtle about wording the MUSIC criteria. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree it might've been possible to close as no consensus rather than keep - the practical outcome is the same, so usually articles that're a bit gray in that respect don't merit quite a close a consideration as those on the no consensus/delete border. Perhaps I should've written weak keep? (I would have been willing to so qualify it if I'd been asked, rather than just informed a DRV was in progress.) WilyD 08:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A no consensus close allows an editor to immediately relist the article AfD whereas a keep close generally keeps the article out of AfD for another three months. The practical outcome is not the same. Since a DRV has been started, I don't think you can change your close. Yes, the DRV lister should have asked you first before coming to DRV. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close, somewhat reluctantly per DGG above. I don't think that a consensus to delete is present in the discussion. However, I also don't think that a consensus not to merge is clear. That is a "No Consensus" or a "Keep, without prejudice to further merge discussions" might be better closes. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article's sourcing to Amazon is an embarrassment and the relialbe sources used in the article do not mention Rihanna's 3 CD Collector's Set. The delete argument regarding the lack of coverage in reliable sources for this album was not overcome. Wikipedia is a text based communication medium and an article that says "it charted" does not convey enough reliable source information to justify a stand alone article. I don't see how keep was the correct consensus close. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete. The "keep" closure was in error because it ignored that none of the "keep" opinions substantially addressed the argument that the album apparently did not attract any reliably sourced third-party coverage, which was highlighted in the nomination and is a policy-level inclusion requirement per WP:V#Notability. The fact that the album may have been included on charts is not, per WP:BAND and WP:NALBUMS, a criterium for inclusion for an album, but only for the respective musician or ensemble, and therefore the "keep" arguments amounting to "it charted" should have been discounted. Sandstein 05:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus there was no consensus to keep the article, nor to delete it, the Afd outcome was essentially the same as the previous nomination. Till 13:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There clearly wasn't any consensus to either keep or delete the article. I would say "Overturn to no consensus" but that would be unnecessary and just a waste of time. Statυs (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
This AfD was closed with the rationale "policy based argument, majority of editors" by WilyD (talk·contribs). This is despite the fact that the majority of keep arguments violated WP:ATA (including one WP:JUSTAVOTE and multiple examples of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:NOTINHERITED) and the rather blatant fact that not one keep !voter even suggested that the article passed WP:NSONGS. The closing administrator needs to be reminded of WP:NOTAVOTE. SplashScreen (talk) 12:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The point of DRV isn`t to try to re-argue the discussion. Policies & guidelines dictated keep, and therefor most editors argued keep. A very straightforward case. WilyD 15:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which policies and guidelines would those be? Because multiple users noted that the article fails WP:NSONGS and not one keep !voter suggested that it passes it. Again, WP:NOTAVOTE. SplashScreen (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What we have here is a consensus vs a mass of WP:ALPHABETSOUP. The consensus rightly prevailed. The fact is, SplashScreen, that there's a good reason why WP:ATA is only an essay. The reason is that it's nothing more than a list of things some editors think other editors shouldn't be allowed to say. It doesn't have a coherent or intelligible thesis, and although parts of it are supported by a few attempts at reason, in fact the logic behind WP:ATA is in general very shaky.
WP:NSONGS is a SNG, and Deletion Review has a long history of treating SNGs with the contempt that they deserve. If something passes the GNG then it merits an article and if it doesn't, it doesn't, irrespective of what any SNG might have to say.
Of course, even if this title was non-notable, the answer wouldn't be to delete it. It would be to redirect it to Love?, and a redirect is of course a "keep" outcome. So even if the subject was non-notable, "keep" would still have been the way forward.—S MarshallT/C 18:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – The rough consensus was that the coverage provided met the general notability guideline. While we do have specific notability guidelines for songs, that does not mean that songs that have not charted cannot have their own articles – that is where the general guideline comes in. --MuZemike 21:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse consensus was that the coverage that existed was adequate. No reason for the closing admin to have gone any other way. Note that SNG's are generally not held to be exclusive (i.e., a song must pass NSONGS to have an article), but more often held to be complementary to the GNG (pass GNG or relevant SNG). Jclemens (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Wikipedia isn't here to convey a representative survey of what the Internet says about a topic. Articles need to reflect a thorough and representative survey of reliable sources. The trouble with this article is that it includes any information about the topic with little concern to limiting that information to reliable source information. However, that is a basis to improve the article, not to delete it. Those proposing to keep the article seemed to agree that there is enough information on the topic. The closer could have took that to mean the topic meets WP:GNG. A strong 'fails to meet WP:GNG argument' with a review of the existing references and a search for other references could have carried the day. Instead, the delete positions were weakly argued, giving little to the closer to work with. OPs listing was a good argument, but for some reason didn't gain much support from those maintaining a delete position. "I advise readers not to be fooled by" may have turn people off as did implying that there seems to be nothing remotely important about this song. (As an aside, closing with "policy based argument" is annoying to those having a view different from the close since it fails to state any specific policy and you're better off not posting any reason in the close. Also, I think more respect should have been given to the closing administrator by the DRV OP for his willingness to close the discussion and thus open his actions to review at DRV. You're not going to win anyone over at DRV by addressing the admin rather than limiting your comments to the close itself.) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
