Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 March 30

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 2022 March 29
2022 March 31 >

30 March 2022

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of songs about Montreal (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

inconsistency between deleting this specific article while keeping 36 others designed and powered exactly the same way :

Please delete them all or restore the article to Montreal. Urbanut (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Urbanut, welcome to deletion review. I've reformatted your nomination to make things clearer, hope that's OK. The fact that we have those other articles doesn't mean we have to keep this one. All it means is that we make decisions one at a time and we haven't got round to thinking about those ones yet. I'm afraid I think most of them will be deleted in due course. I hope that doesn't make you too unhappy.—S Marshall T/C 22:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse while the nom and one !voter mentioning WP:IINFO are incorrectly citing it (almost no list on Wikipedia is indiscriminate per its definition), I suspect that 90% of references to that policy are citing it incorrectly or inappropriately. If we overturned every AfD with that mistake, we'd be getting rid of a lot of them. Ditto with the nominator mistaking Montreal for a "province or territory" rather than a city. Fact is, no one supported keeping and the discussion cited specific defects in the sourcing for the list. Jclemens (talk) 00:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse this deletion and nominate some or all of the other articles mentioned for deletion too. Stifle (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also content with Cunard's solution below. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Correct close. The appellant is saying that Other Stuff Exists, which has long been an Argument to Avoid. The usual response is applicable here, which is that the Other Stuff can be nominated for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but move Draft:List of songs about Montreal to List of songs about Montreal and undelete the deleted article's history under the new article. I endorse the close because there was a unanimous consensus to delete in the AfD. The deleted version of the article contained a large number of entries, all of which were unsourced. The lead was sourced to three sources (1, 2, and 3), which were either self-published sources or about the band of Montreal's songs. None of the individual entries were sourced.

    I created Draft:List of songs about Montreal, which shows that a sourced, policy-compliant list about this topic can be made. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says:

    Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.

    Here are sources that show Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists is met:
    1. Rodriguez, Juan. (2007-04-14). "They're Playing Our Song. From Beau Dommage and Leonard Cohen to Malajube and Ariane Moffatt, singers and songwriters in Montreal and in love with Montreal have always charted the life of our city in music" (pages 1 and 2). Montreal Gazette. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2022-04-04. Retrieved 2022-04-04 – via Newspapers.com.

      The entire article is about songs about Montreal. The article has a sidebar titled "A stroll through the ages of Montreal in song" and lists:

      1. Mam'zelle Montréal, Gaston Saint-Jacques (1923)
      2. Les nuits de Montréal, Jacques Raymond (1949)
      3. À cheval dans Montréal, Willie Lamothe (1953)
      4. Montréal est la petite fille de Paris, Mimi Hétu (1967)
      5. Welcome to Montreal, René Simard (1967)
      6. Le blues de la métropole, Beau Dommage (1975)
      7. Je reviendrai à Montréal, Robert Charlebois (1976)
      8. Le mal de Montréal, Lucien Francoeur (1983)
      9. Montréal est une femme, Jean-Pierre Ferland (1992)
      10. Montréal -40 C, Malajube (2006)
    2. Burnett, Richard (2012-10-27). "Museum ranks All-Time Top 5 songs about Montreal". Montreal Gazette. Archived from the original on 2022-04-04. Retrieved 2022-04-04.

      The article notes: "The Pointe-à-Callière museum in Old Montreal – whose mission is to raise awareness and foster an appreciation of Montreal’s history – has released a Top 5 list of songs about Montreal. ... So, without further ado, Pointe-à-Callière’s Top 5 five songs that best evoke Montréal, as chosen by web users, are: Je reviendrai à Montréal by Robert Charlebois; Le blues de la Métropole by Beau Dommage; Montréal by Ariane Moffat; Demain matin, Montréal m’attend, written by Michel Tremblay to music by François Dompierre, and performed by Louise Forestier; and J’ai souvenir encore by Claude Dubois."

      The article further notes: "Many classic songs about Montreal are missing from this list, of course, such as ..."

      The article later notes: "Other famous performers have written and sung songs about Montreal, such as ..."

    I support undeleting the deleted article's history under the new article so that editors can use the list of songs as a basis for searching for sources that verify the songs are about Montreal. It is likely that a good number of the entries in the deleted list can be sourced and then re-added back to the new article.

    Cunard (talk) 07:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete and redirect to List of songs about cities. The AfD failed to do WP:BEFORE. There is an obvious redirect target. There may be a question about the notability of Songs about cities, and if yes, whether Wikipedia should list every song about a city. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on new information, it does look like WP:LISTN is met. So endorse deletion but restore Hobit (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Ehhhh - difficult to overturn a unanimous but I'm not sure we've got the right result here. I don't think an overturn is proper, especially since there was clearly no closer error, but this appears to possibly be a valid article if properly sourced on sourcing grounds, but that deserves more discussion somewhere. SportingFlyer T·C 19:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SportingFlyer: I figure the best way forward on that is to restore and let anyone who wants to bring it to AfD. Not sure what else makes sense. A draft doesn't really help here IMO. I'd certainly not object to the closer here saying "close endorsed, article restored based on new sources without prejudice to a new AfD" or some such. Hobit (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, allow recreation Nothing wrong with the close as per Cunard. But Cunard has also shown that a policy compliant list could be made. Allow recreation. Jumpytoo Talk 06:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Millerovo air base attack – Re-closed as normal "keep". Consensus is that the outcome was correct, that the "speedy" closure by a non-admin was inappropriate, but a "snow" keep would have been ok. Sandstein 07:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Millerovo air base attack (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The result was summed up by an inexperienced editor based on Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. The main problem of the article is that there are no secondary sources that would describe the event. The fact that the Ukrainian army bombed the Russian air base has not been confirmed by either Russian or Ukrainian official sources. All information comes from a report by Russian propagandist Semyon Pegov, which was later reprinted by Ukrainian and other media. Please consider this case with an experienced administrator. Yakudza (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse as the only possible reading of the consensus, and as proper NAC. Not one editor supported the nomination. Your argument isn't that the non-admin closer misread the situation, it's that everyone else who looked at the article and opined in the discussion is wrong as to the content of the article. I get that you feel strongly about this, but DRV is not for things where you couldn't convince a single editor at AfD to take your side. Jclemens (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per subsequent comments, I'm fine with converting speedy keep to a normal keep. Jclemens (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a truly horrible closing statement, though, isn't it? I mean, it's practically the platonic ideal of how not to write a close. I'm not surprised the nominator is unhappy about it.—S Marshall T/C 22:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, it's pretty in-your-face... but is it incorrect? Jclemens (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wouldn't dispute the "keep" outcome, but a close should give closure. A good close is collegially-phrased and contains a summary of the arguments. I'd like it if we repaired that one.—S Marshall T/C 00:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry if I handled it badly, feel free to replace it/cross or add note "this is NOT how closing reason should look like for reasons XYZ" Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy keep decision to normal keep. Speedy keep has a specific meaning. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy keep decision to normal keep. Also, significant comment: Because of the recent Attack on Belgorod, a discussion is taking place which could merge the articles together into Attacks on Russia during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. The event is notable, and the AfD showed a strong consensus about that, so besides converting the speedy keep into a keep, nothing should be done. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — I have recently reverted an edit by Tomastvivlaren that was unsourced information.[1] However, both the nominator/AfD deletion review nominator, Yakudza used the exact same wording of “The fact that the Ukrainian army bombed the Russian air base has not been confirmed by either Russian nor Ukrainian official sources. All information comes from a report by Russian propagandist Semyon Pegov, which was later reprinted by Ukrainian and other media.”[2][3] I believe this deletion review should lead into a possible sock investigation. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy keep to normal keep. There are a fixed set of speedy keep criteria and this discussion doesn't meet any of them. Reyk YO! 20:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not within criteria for a normal keep either, having been closed before the requisite 168 hours had elapsed. I propose that we amend the close to snow keep with a closing summary such as: This article seems to have been begun prematurely. In its earliest incarnation it was sourced mainly to social media and, taking into account the state of the article and the sources at that time, it was understandable that someone nominated it for deletion. During the course of the AfD many, much better, new sources emerged and the article was comprehensively expanded and rewritten. In circumstances like these, Wikipedians occasionally invoke the WP:HEY convention, and this is what happens here.—S Marshall T/C 23:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The problem is one of terminology. Many inexperienced editors and some intermediate editors do not know the difference between a speedy close and a snow close. However, inexperienced editors should not close AFDs. The closer evidently intended to Snow close as Keep, and it is a valid snow close. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse after reinterpreting as a Snow Close. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure whether this is "endorse" or "overturn", but I think this should have been a regular (albeit snowball clause) keep, and not a speedy keep. While speedy keeps and snowball keeps are different, they are similar in effect and were likely confused. This is really just a difference of terminology, and the outcome itself is fine. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per closure text in German Wikipedia: "The goal of the project is the encyclopaedic processing of secured knowledge, not the unfiltered reflection of bits of information from the turmoil of war. Here, on the basis of current media attention, individual events are inflated into historically significant events that they are not". No secondary RS, no analysis - no article. Wikisaurus (talk) 03:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mehhhhhhh We were a day away from having a normal keep result, likely from an admin. The close was improper but this whole DRV is kind of a waste of time - just have an administrator vacate and re-close the thing. SportingFlyer T·C 19:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2022_March_30&oldid=1179943696"