Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Place With No Name (2nd nomination)

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 Content has been Merged. (non-admin closure) Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 13:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Place With No Name

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

• It does seem to meet the
  WP:GNG, however it doesn't seem likely that this article can be expanded as the sources seem to say the same thing. Delete, and recreate when it can be. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 22:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Speedy close and redirect to Michael Jackson#Posthumous releases; content has been merged there. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 22:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No speedy close? I thought the nominator changing their vote to something other than delete was automatic grounds for a speedy keep or close. Ah, well. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 01:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While I still think an article is warranted, per my below, I would not be opposed to this approach. It makes a convenient place to fork out an article in future for the posthumous releases in general or the songs themselves if any of these warrant forking, or if none of that comes to fruition, they are at least recorded there. Arakunem^Talk 22:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing confirmed from official sources. Its just another one of the hundreds of unreleased songs. —Preceding

• Delete. It probably will be highly relevant once released, but Wikipedia
  doesn't tell the future. At the moment it is little more than a rumour. McMarcoP (talk) 09:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: Per
  talk) 13:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per all of the above and my comments at the last AFD. Pyrrhus16 13:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't see CRYSTAL applying here, as this is not "unverifiable speculation", but rather is quite verifiable. There is unquestionably a song by Jackson, or at least a portion of one, which has gotten much airplay and is covered by reliable sources such as ABC News, The Washington Post, LA Times, and so on. I feel this makes the song notable, and any speculation as to what will happen next is verifiable, if it is sourced from the RS, and it is the RS'es that are doing the speculating, and not the article editors. Thus it meets the requirements laid out in CRYSTAL: "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." Arakunem^Talk 17:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also from a procedural standpoint, what's changed in the 20 days since the previous AfD closed? Arakunem^Talk 17:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable." Please show me where it has been confirmed that this song will be released. The article only says some will. There's a chance this might not ever be officially released. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 17:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, nobody really knows, but that's Verifiable Speculation if cited. If we speculate in the article, that's Crystal. If we cite ABC News speculating, that is verifiable, even if the event itself is not ever going to happen. Just like we can't have opinions in articles, but we can have "facts about opinions". Crystal doesnt specify that there can't be speculation about a future event, it just says that speculation has to be verifiable. Arakunem^Talk 22:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the article itself doesn't even say that it will be released. It just says what we know for sure (from the above RS): that the song exists, though only heard as a snippet, and that Jackson's will wanted all his unreleased songs released. So while you could infer that the song will be released, the article itself does not say that, so it is not even predicting a future event. So regardless of the interpretation, Crystal really doesn't apply here, and we're down to basic GNG. Arakunem^Talk 22:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"There's a chance this might not ever be officially released". Now THAT's what I call unverifiable speculation. >:-) The article on the other hand is just fine. the wub "?!" 10:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep* All sources are completely verifiable, there is no need for someone to go out of their way to delete this article. It is not hurting anyone and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Should someone have interest in the speculation they have no way of finding out about it, this is an encyclopedia and a free one at that. There is absolutely no need to get rid of a fairly informative article, if this is what wikipedia is coming to, there is no reason to allow individuals to edit pages. It is supposed to be open to people so that it is a people's encyclopedia, meaning that the PEOPLE who search on it get what they want. The nomination of this article for deletion is a parallel of what this world is coming to. You know what, delete the article, just know that you are slowly KILLING wikipedia... THE FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA!!! --JDelo93 (talk) 04:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: While Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone, there are a few things that it it is
  crystal ball is one of them. This has not gotten an official single release and very well may never be released even as an album track. A 25-second clip of an unofficially released song is not notable enough for inclusion. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 05:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep per Arakunem. Substantive coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources makes this notable whether it eventually sees a release or not. the wub "?!" 10:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Undeniable Delete because this song is leaked and therefore fails WP:notability (music). this song was probably never meant to be released and if it ever is released will probably sound different. It is also a small snippet that leaked as far as i can tell. Additionally the article will always remain a WP:stub.(Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• Undeniable Keep - Whether the song was leaked or meant to be released or will ever be officially released is irrelevant if the song has been covered in multiple reliable sources. It has, and so meets
  notability and thus should be kept. Rlendog (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Plus, nothing has changed since the consensus to keep less than a month ago to warrant another AfD. Rlendog (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There may be reliable sources, but they all essentially say the same thing, which doesn't add much information to this already-a-stub article. It may meet the
  WP:GNG, but if this can't be expanded, it should be deleted, or at best some of the information can be merged into Death of Michael Jackson. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 22:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep the information somewhere on wikipedia, at least: I'm not sure that this topic deserves its own article yet, but it needs to be included somewhere on wikipedia, perhaps as a subsection within a larger articles. Searches for 'A Place with No Name' ought to direct somewhere, even if not to a lone article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieRCD (talk • contribs) 00:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Undeniable Keep I agree completely with Rlendog, nothing has changed since the last AfD nomination to warrant another nomination, no deconstructive edits were made to the article that made it less verifiable from a week ago to now. Additionally, the article is not telling the future by any means, it is simply stating facts about what has been released about this song so far. If there is any wording in the article that does take on the persona of a "Crystal Ball" it is more appropriate to just edit the article to remove the future telling instead of deleting the article when it has fair notability. --70.111.147.204 (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC) — 70.111.147.204 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Definite Keep as per Arakunem. The article does not suggest the future, it provides interesting knowledge about a song that, at the least, we know exists. There are plenty of reliable sources and has the ability to be expanded on should individuals take interest in its coverage. It is also imperative to keep the article alive as it could become historical. It is, in fact, the very first bit of posthumous music the public has heard from Michael Jackson, that is not Crystal Ball information it is fact. --Johnnied93 (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC) — Johnnied93 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment: It is good information and is possibly historical, but it doesn't warrant its own article yet. As I said, maybe a merge to Death of Michael Jackson? POKERdance ^talk/contribs 00:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, and it would appear to be that we have two users supporting to keep the article whose first edits were at this page. I certainly hope no one here is using
  sockpuppets to votestack. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 00:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep: Come on, ya'll. [Controversial and disputed biographical material removed] This is MICHAEL JACKSON! The man made Thriller! THRILLER! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.34.217.222 (talk) 03:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:
  Notability is not inherited. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 03:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I think that was a poor attempt at humor, rather than a serious vote. The whole phrase, including the redacted bit, was a quote from a South Park episode.... Arakunem^Talk 22:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I figured it wasn't a serious vote, but I just wanted to make sure in case that person legitimately thought that Jackson's notability would be a reason to keep the article. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 22:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Didn't we just do this a few weeks ago? The vote was keep. There's no need to keep trying to delete the article when the majority chose to keep it, but in any case, once again he was my vote during the first nomination... There are several legitimate sources behind the song therefore, the song warrants its own article, especially considering the fact that one of those resources states that Jackson's will called for his unreleased materail to be released and this is the first to be released therefore, giving the notion that this song will be the first to be released in its entirely as an album track and perhaps a single. Of course this all speculation but the notion is now out there. A definate keeper.
  talk) 21:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Just Keep It There is nothing wrong with this article, why waste time going through the debate process and deletion process with a perfectlygood article that will only get better with time, just leave it alone, maybe clean it up a little, but otherwise just leave it alone. --68.192.142.241 (talk) 00:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The content has already been merged to Michael Jackson. What's the point in keeping this now? When it can be expanded, we can recreate the article. Until then, it should remain merged and we should redirect it to Michael Jackson#Posthumous releases. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 00:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The last count so far is 10 - 5 for keep. I think it's good to have something in the Michael jackson article but the article still needs to be kept as it has been standing on its own merit. It was voted two weeks prior to this entry that the article should be kept so just leave it at that.

talk) 20:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment: We use consensus, not vote. Most of the people here may be voting to keep the article, but it's already been merged to Michael Jackson. Keeping this when it's already in its own section elsewhere is ridiculous. As I said, redirect to the section it was merged to, and recreate the page when and if it can ever be expanded to a decently-sized article. That would be the best solution, especially since the merging's already happened. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 21:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So in other words, you are going to merge it no matter the consenses is. The first time you did it, it was reverted because such edit was restricted because of this consensus. Not the way to go about things, sorry.

talk) 22:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment I have to say, you definitely made the decision to "Speedy Close and redirect" on your own, there was no consensus reached, and I, as the original creator of the article, was not even asked for input or told of the redirect. Before you just redirected the article on your own there really should have been a discussion, which there was none of, before you took it upon yourself to make a decision that 10 out of 15 people didn't want. That is the whole point of voting, majority rules, one person's decision should not stand against ten people's votes. --JDelo93 (talk) 01:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Jeremy706, the article is so short that merging it should have been a rather obvious decision, and I wish I'd have thought of that before I started this discussion. And you need to get your facts straight, my edit was automatically reverted because I had made no previous edits to Michael Jackson and it is a vandalism hot-spot.

And JDelo93, merging should have been an obvious decision and I wished I had known that before I started this discussion. However, we use consensus here, not vote. And since my second merge of the content to Michael Jackson after the bot initially reverted it by judging my edit count to the article, no one has objected to it, so that would be a consensus that it's better merged than a stub that's not likely to expand for quite some time, no? Furthermore, I never redirected the page. Since I started this discussion without taking more time to think of the alternatives, it's now up to the discussion closer to decide. Regardless of the many votes to keep, I don't think there's much of a point in keeping a stub when it's already merged elsewhere. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 01:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, there is no point in keeping an article that's already merged, But it's only merged because, you merged it on your own, so stop using that as an excuse to delete the article. Also, i am sure that if you informed all of those who voted keep that you decided to merge they would most likely object to it, also the two people in this comment thread are objecting to it right now. I mis-worded my last post in saying "Re-directed" I did mean merge. However, the consensus that you keep speaking of was never reached, there was never a debate on whether or not to merge the content, was there. There fore a consensus was not reached, so if we go by consensus, why does your decision stand as the ultimate decision? --JDelo93 (talk) 05:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone please close this debate. It's clear that the consensus is 10 to 5 to keep the article and we are getting nothing but comments, though each side have good arguements.

talk) 10:25, 20 August 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.