WP:Articles for deletion/A Place With No Name (3rd nomination)

:{{la|A Place With No Name}} ([{{fullurl:A Place With No Name|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Place With No Name (3rd nomination)}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

:({{findsources|A Place With No Name}})

Previously closed debate. Found out the nominator merged content himself. I am neutral, with no opinion on delete or keep. Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 16:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong delete/redirect. Information has been merged into the main Michael Jackson article and the subject remains a 25 second leaked snippet of a song that has received no official release, hasn't charted, and has not received indepth coverage. Before anyone starts talking about how many Google hits the song has received, look and see whether information is indepth; mentioning the production, recording, composition and reception. Most of what we know about the song is that it exists. The information regarding "A Place With No Name" can also be mentioned in A Horse With No Name. Pyrrhus16 16:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

:*Comment - You really must stop mentioning the fact that content has been merged, it was merged by ill-mannered means, and therefore, means nothing to the debate. The reason for the third nomination and the reopening of the debate was because the last nominator merged content himself. Please see above description of the nomination by Unionhawk. --JDelo93 (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Yet Again - Per my comments at the 2nd nomination "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 WP:N. If it ever gets released and charts or gets multiple covers, etc., it will also meet WP:NSONGS. But given that the song currently exists and has already been covered in multiple reliable sources, it is not WP:CRYSTAL, it does meet notability and thus should be kept. Plus, nothing has changed since the consensus to keep less than a month ago to warrant another AfD." Rlendog (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

:*Covered to what extent? Indepth? Multiple sources can say that there is a trampoline in my garden. Multiple sources probably mention the fact that there is a ferris wheel at Neverland Ranch. It doesn't mean we have to create articles for them; they should be mentioned in the relevant articles unless the information is indepth. The information here is not. Pyrrhus16 17:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

::*The notability guidelines require "significant" coverage, and the song has received "significant" coverage. The notability guidelines to not specify all the stipulated requirements you list. Of course, you are free to adhere to your view of how significant the coverage must be and !vote accordingly. But I believe that the coverage that this song has received has been significant enough to warrant a standalone article. Rlendog (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - please see arguments to avoid, as the arguments I saw in the last AfD were extremely weak.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 17:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

:*Users are perfectly free to disregard essays, Unionhawk. ATA is basically a list of arguments someone else thinks shouldn't count, and its reasoning is in some places distinctly shaky. I wouldn't want to see anyone's good-faith opinion disregarded because of that essay.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

::*Yeah, but a lot of admins use ATA as a general guideline too. Just humor me, people. This isn't a vote or anything, so no "KEEP!!! IT'S MICHAEL JACKSON, PEOPLE!" !votes. That's just annoying.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 22:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep and Expand - The ultimate question to ask when nominating the article should have been; Is the article hurting or helping wikipedia and its visitors? If any single person can prove, with valid debate evidence, that this article hurts wikipedia and does its users wrong, then yes, the article should be redirected. However, there is no reason to say that this article does anything negative. It helps wikipedia visitors, if anything, by providing significant information about a hot topic instead of the reader having to search all over the internet. The article is not malicious or vandalism, therefore it really is not hurting anyone. Overall, the article is definitely helping wikipedia, and especially its readers, to read up on information that is hard to find elsewhere. --JDelo93 (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

:See WP:NOHARM--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 22:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Oh for crying out loud! Jeremy (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge it to Michael Jackson discography. How many articles on Michael bloody Jackson is Wikipedia supposed to need? Surely a small number of thorough articles, each watched by a substantial number of interested editors, is what's needed—not a massive sprawling morass of tiny little articles each watched and maintained by a handful. Wikipedia is for the benefit of end-users, and end-users tend to want all the information to be together.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• Procedural Q: As Unionhawk is neutral, and the nom for the previous AfD struck-through all the original deletion criteria, under what Deletion Criteria is this article being considered for deletion? Arakunem^Talk 22:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• I understand your reasoning but I'm afraid the first response precludes closing this debate under WP:SK ground 1. It'll need to run for the seven days because a delete argument has been presented.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• I should have clarified that Pyrrhus' remark constitutes a challenge to notability and the reliability of the sources.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• Right, I was not looking for an SK out. I just want to get an idea of what the crux of the discussion should be since the previous AfD seemed to end up with the article meeting GNG, and CRYSTAL not applicable. So it just helps to know what the contention actually is in this discussion so we don't all diverge off into ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT territory. Arakunem^Talk 23:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• This is the third time inside of a month that this article has been nominated for delete and the first two times it was voted to keep instead of delete. Speedy Keep is the best way to go.Jeremy (talk) 00:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

(←)See nomination comments.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 00:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. This link: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=a-place-with-no-name&scoring=a&sa=N&cid=8629443996156901] and this [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=jackson+a-place-with-no-name&scoring=a&sa=N&cid=8629431111254595] should demonstrate that the topic meets the Notability Guidelines. It has received substantial coverage (defined as "sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content") in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Furthermore, the article does not make any unverifiable speculation, thus it is not covered by WP:CRYSTAL. Arakunem^Talk 00:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, for all reasons stated above. And then some. :P --From Andoria with Love (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment We are at 5 to 1 for keep. Is there a way to keep a page from being repeatedly nominated for deletion when it's being made clear that people want this article to stay? Jeremy (talk) 03:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

:Note: Please do not tally the !votes, as this is not a ballot. Because of the circumstances, this AfD should be run for the full 7 days.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 05:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

:And, no. There isn't an AfD lockout or anything. I renominated this article because reopening was not possible. So, please remember the nom comments before complaining that this has been nominated a few too many times again, all right?--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 05:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep merged, and speedy close. Take it to deletion review if you disagree with the consensus. AfD is not the place for you to protest results of previous debates, especially if you have no opinion on the matter. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 16:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

:*Comment - the only reason it was merged is because you did so. Hence, I renominated it. How many times do I have to ask people to read the nom comments...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 16:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

::Besides, if I had to close this right now (which, being nom, I can't), I would close as Keep...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 16:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

::*Comment - OK, but what you're not getting, is that you shouldn't have started another AfD discussion if you disagreed with the outcome of the last one. This is what deletion review is for. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 18:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

:::*Well, Unionhawk didn't disagree with the previous close, as he's the one who closed it (NAC). My guess is he realized that the consensus was not there, so a NAC was not appropriate. Me, I would have probably just reverted my close and let an admin come along, but whatever. This will accomplish the same thing eventually, whichever way it goes, and there is no deadline. I should also point out that "content had been merged" is a form of Meta-reasoning. Arakunem^Talk 19:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

::::*And even the prior close did not indicate any consensus for a merge; it just noted the fact that content had been merged. Rlendog (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

::::Can anyone close a debate? Jeremy (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

(←) see WP:NAC A non admin probably shouldn't close this one to prevent what happened last time >.>.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 11:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

::::Ok. Just wondering, thanks Jeremy (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and improve. Sources obviously exist, and it isn't getting any less notable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

: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.