- Category:Songs sampling Kool & the Gang songs (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
- Category:Songs sampling previously recorded songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Songs sampling Marvin Gaye songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Songs sampling Stevie Wonder songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
To start off, I was the creator of Category:Songs sampling Kool & the Gang songs, but no one informed me that it was up for deletion, and I was not given a fair chance to comment.
In the discussion that led to its deletion, there were unanimous deletes. But this was only bundled with the others listed. During the discussion, all the deletes given, including the nom's, did not cite a single link to policies, guidelines, or essays, but were simply votes that followed the leader along with people just throwing around terms link "trivial" with no really good explanation why.
Category:Songs sampling Kool & the Gang songs was previously put up for CfD on its own, and was unanimously kept (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 1#Category:Songs sampling Kool & the Gang songs).
I also want to give my point of view on sampling, which I would have given in the discussion had I had the chance to comment.
What I would like to point out is that sampling in music is far from trivial. Sampling when it occurs is a big part of the identity of a song that makes it notable in the world for what it is. When anyone hears a song that samples an older song, if they are familiar with the older song, they will notice it immediately, before they know the instruments used to perform the song or even can identify the artist.
Sampling is part of the marketability of a song. Many artists will sample an older song in order to draw attention on the basis of the older song. There are some artists who have used sampling in 100% of their released singles.
There are legal issues pertaining to sampling, and the legality of using another's copyrighted material. There have been some notable lawsuits over sampling. There is no way you can call that trivial. (While there are some songs in which the original artist has sued with varying verdicts, there are others in which not only has the original artist given permission, but has participated in the recording.)
In just about any Wikipedia article on a notable song, when applicable, it'll state in the article what song(s) the song samples, or what songs have sampled that song. This is generally sourced or sourceable information that fully belongs in the article too.
Nothing under Wikipedia:Overcategorization prohibits categories like these. Wikipedia guidelines have every reason to include such categories. Shaliya waya (talk) 21:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Arguments given show that sampling is very notable. Dew Kane (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - Sorry, this isn't XfD Round 2; there's no other way to read a discussion of all delete opinions. Tarc (talk) 01:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse and relist There is no way that discussion could have been closed as anything other than delete. That said, what appear to be legitimate new issues have been raised. A relisting seems reasonable. No real need to restore at this time, just relist. Hobit (talk) 07:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse While I would have voted to keep the categories under discussion and I agree that the phenomonen these categories organize is defining, the consensus at CfD was for deletion and I see no other way to interpret the actual consensus of CfD participants. Alansohn (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is a "consensus can change" kind of a thing. The argument made above was not made at CfD and should have been. Is it accurate? I'd guess so, but not my area. In any case, nothing wrong with rediscussing if it looks like it is worth rediscusssing. If that discussion doesn't happen here or at CfD, where would it happen? Or are we locked out of having this cat forever? Hobit (talk) 01:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. While sampling itself may be trivial or notable, categorizing in this manner is not. I'm not seeing anything new here that would overturn the consensus at the CFD. --Kbdank71 18:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. No way can the close be criticized. As for the issue itself, I agree with those who gave their opinions in the discussion, and would not support re-creation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist. I do not believe this was a clean and fair deletion. Each of these should have been listed separately. Someone has also brought up new evidence here that needs time to discuss, and these categories do comply with inclusion guidelines for categories. Linda Olive (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Open question to all. We all agree A) consensus can change and B) new arguments can come up which change that consensus. With a deleted article you can recreate it. With a kept article, you can send it back to AfD. What does one do with a deleted category? People are dismissing the DrV because the close was fine. And I agree. But where does one go if the consensus was wrong? It's either got to be DrV or CfD. If it's CfD we should send it back to there. If it's DrV (which I think is a poor idea) let's weigh the topic rather than the close. There must be somewhere. Hobit (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a case of someone wanting to recreate a deleted category years later and the possibility exists that consensus has changed. The CFD that deleted this happened this month. I don't have a problem with relisting something at CFD to gauge a consensus change, but doing it this soon just sets a bad precedent, in that anyone who disagrees with a close can immediately relist a category claiming consensus had changed. Give it some time, then relist it. --Kbdank71 01:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is something really going to change with time? If there were an actual debate I'd agree with you. But here you A) have someone who really should have been notified of the discussion but wasn't B) a situation where no one expressed the (quite reasonable) arguments that are expressed above. I agree with your worry, but it still seems a reasonable request and very much a WP:BURO issue to just say "wait a while and try again". Hobit (talk) 11:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
