Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:List of best-selling music artists/talk mbox

:{{pagelinks|Talk:List of best-selling music artists/talk mbox}}

:Please see - the rules of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Core content policies and Wikipedia:No original research. These rules are not subordinated for consensus of some users. This box violated the rules of Wikipedia. It invents the numbers taken from space, nonsense percentage numbers and establishes the rights inconsistent with the principles of Wikipedia. These calculations (OR) also introduces false information to article, erroneous data underestimated. Also, article name of "List of best-selling music artists" suggests that it will be the total number of records sold, but - this is only records sold for gold, silver and platinum CD's. Also, user (co-author) makes use incomplete sources - not presenting the complete data. The problem is serious, because this box is "basis" for the article. This article shall be based on the calculations of one user. Box for delete. Subtropical-man (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Delete, see above. Subtropical-man (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - It's not original research, it's the result of a consensus. Feel free to change the consensus of what numbers are in the box, but I hate to tell you...removing the box isn't going to remove the consensus. Achowat (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• :Consensus never can break the rules of Wikipedia, this is consensus for OR. It is not allowed. This Wikipedia rules are not in dispute. Subtropical-man (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• ::First of all, yes it can. Wikipedia policies are descriptive, not perscriptive. Secondly, it's not Original Research. Feel free to read WP:OR. Setting minimum standards for inclusion is what talk pages and consensus does. Original research is about content in "articles", not about us setting our own rules and procedures for inclusion. I'm sorry, but after a misplaced AFD, a wholly inappropriate CSD, and now this. You're somewhere between violating WP:POINT, WP:CIR, and WP:FORUMSHOP, but either way I'd drop the issue. An editor more willing to get involved with drama might drop a message at WP:ANI about you. Achowat (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• ::: "Original research is about content in "articles", not about us setting our own rules and procedures for inclusion"? - this is about content in article, this box is basis for the article. This article shall be based on the calculations of one user. Subtropical-man (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• ::::You can pretend not to hear the policy if you want. But this MFD is going nowhere. MFD doesn't make policy, it applies it. The correct venue to make the change you want is at Talk:List of best-selling music artists. But if you want to keep fighting about it here, I guess no one is going to stop you. Happy battlegrounding. I'm done. Achowat (talk) 14:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Keep That's right, the original research policy restricts what content can be added to articles, which is not the case with the main article that this information-box belongs to. This info-box is part of a talk-page which is based on consensus of multiple editors. Everything that is done based on the instructions in the info-box is supported by reliable sources, that is not original research.--Harout72 (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• :Where is sources for data (calculating and %) in this box? Subtropical-man (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

:::Read up Wikipedia:No original research#Routine calculations. What's presented in the box is about converting units (Gold/Platinum awards into figures) and adding numbers. The percentages which are based on consensus, do not immediately reflect what's added to the list. They are merely used to determine which sources are the best to go with, and WP:RS states: The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context.--Harout72 (talk) 01:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

:::Please give the sources for "before 1975 are required to have their lowest available sales figures supported by 15% in certified units", "between 1975–1990 are required to have their lowest available claimed figures supported by 15–35% in certified units. (That is 1.33% for each additional year after 1975)" and other. That is one of many things to explain. What are this numbers? 1.33%, 15-35% and other. Why not 1.66% or 45-46%? Please, sources for this numbers. Subtropical-man (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

::::Consensus decided that. And you've been told that. Harout, stop trying. Subtropicalman clearly can't hear us anyway. In 7 days an admin will close this discussion as keep and Subtropicalman will have to find some other area to turn into a battleground. Achowat (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

:::::Continuation of the discussion will be in discussion of article. Subtropical-man (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep-The nomination here was based of a fundamental misunderstanding of policy. No valid reason for deletion has been offered. I'm gathering that this is, essentially, a dispute over the inclusion criteria for the list. If that's the case, the discussion belongs on the talk page, not MfD.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:27, 20 June 2012 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.