Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skeletor vs Beastman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 delete and redirect, no attributable information to merge. The keep arguments were largely based on flawed reasoning, making redirect - especially when official policy is cited - a more strong argument in forming consensus. - Daniel Bryant 10:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Skeletor vs Beastman
Fan homage to song by novelty band Gnarkill. Redir to band article was reverted. Deiz talk 06:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to Gnarkill.--TBCΦtalk? 06:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to Gnarkill. Good song though, probably their most famous. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 06:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect per comments above. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 10:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. There are many other pages for songs that have much less information than this. Example: Carousel (Song). Blitz Tiger 14:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- The "A exists, so why not B?" argument is never valid, articles must stand on their own merits. It's also not about volume of information, rather whether such information is a) sourced and b) enyclopedic. The closing admin may well disregard your opinion if you fail to address policy and guideline concerns. Deiz talk 15:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Don't redirect it, leave it as its own article. It's a well-known song and probably Gnar Kill's most famous, so just leave it be. There thousands of articles about hit singles and songs that have developed a cult status, so why not let this one have its own page? I'll trim it down and make it look a little more professional, but just leave it be.ElCapitanKyle 14:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- ElCapitanKyle created the article in question, and has made very few other contributions to Wikipedia. Deiz talk 15:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Deiz, if you would specifically inform us of the "policy and guideline concerns" we are violating, the authors of the article in question (myself and Blitz Tiger) would be more than happy to make the necessary changes...
- I'd say put WP:ATT (includes verifiability, original research and reliable sources) and WP:N at the top of your reading list. Deiz talk 15:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, thank you, a little clarification was all I wanted. I will make those changes as soon as I get home from work later tonight. ElCapitanKyle 16:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'd say put WP:ATT (includes verifiability, original research and reliable sources) and WP:N at the top of your reading list. Deiz talk 15:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Deiz, if you would specifically inform us of the "policy and guideline concerns" we are violating, the authors of the article in question (myself and Blitz Tiger) would be more than happy to make the necessary changes...
- Comment Can it at least be a stub? Other Gnarkill songs are stubs. Can't this one be too? ElCapitanKyle 23:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm a little puzzled. If the band are notable and reliable sources are available, why doesn't the same follow for what (we are told) is their most famous song? --kingboyk 23:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- A lot of their notability stems from their famous members (Bam Margera et al) and appearances in their projects. Its not exactly a serious band. The song certainly exists, and is one of their more infamous moments among fans, but practically everything in the article is OR from watching videos and fan/forum CKY memes. Deiz talk 11:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- That's not a reason to delete, it's a reason to clean up. Surely sources are available? Was it released as a single and did it chart? All You Need Is Love (The JAMs song) (obscure UK indie pressing) is an FA so any notable song ought to be able to achieve the same. --kingboyk 13:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think you realize what level this is all on, we're talking seriously obscure bedroom production. Afaik there's no single, certainly no charting and apparently no sources for any of this. Were this brought in line with policy I couldn't see any sensible option other than to redirect the sub-stub to the band article, but as that was contested I really had to send it here. Deiz talk 14:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- OK, sounds reasonable. Thanks for clearing that up. --kingboyk 14:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think you realize what level this is all on, we're talking seriously obscure bedroom production. Afaik there's no single, certainly no charting and apparently no sources for any of this. Were this brought in line with policy I couldn't see any sensible option other than to redirect the sub-stub to the band article, but as that was contested I really had to send it here. Deiz talk 14:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's not a reason to delete, it's a reason to clean up. Surely sources are available? Was it released as a single and did it chart? All You Need Is Love (The JAMs song) (obscure UK indie pressing) is an FA so any notable song ought to be able to achieve the same. --kingboyk 13:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep- My question, Deiz, is why are you are making such an enormous issue out of this? Just drop it. I don't mean this as a personal attack, I'm just puzzled as to why you so adamantly insist this subject does not deserve its own article. So what if it wasn't a hit single or ever made it to the charts? It's an extremely funny song that has become the quintessential Bam Margera/CKY crew work- hilarious, creative, and totally tasteless. Not to mention that it is a pretty well written article. --Der Kapitän 00:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, well written? How about well sourced? Well verified? Not original research? Read WP:ATT and explain how this article fits any of our content policies. And, just to reiterate, I founded WP:CKY and am well aware of how this fits into the CKY universe. It just doesn't fit into Wikipedia. Deiz talk 03:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Other articles that have the things you site are often tagged as such, and given time to improve. I'm not sure why you immediately went to just get rid of it. Blitz Tiger 10:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- An AfD lasts 5 days, plenty of time to load "Skeletor vs Beastman" into google and see how many reliable sources you can come up with. Deiz talk 10:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Point taken, Deiz, but it's pretty much unsourcable. It is what it is; you can't find many in-depth analyses on it, considering it isn't exactly "high art" (although some would disagree). I can see why you dont think this topic should have a full length article, but what about a stub? 146.186.128.233 11:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- An AfD lasts 5 days, plenty of time to load "Skeletor vs Beastman" into google and see how many reliable sources you can come up with. Deiz talk 10:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- There's no such thing as a "stub" as opposed to an "article" in the sense of an article of lower notability or importance, articles can be temporarily "stubbified" to remove damaging or controversial statements, or where a great deal of unsourced material is removed but some sources do indicate notability (Chris Raab being a recent example), neither of which applies here. Redirection does not necessarily mean deletion, and if reliable sources establishing the notability of the song were discovered in the future the page could theoretically be recreated if substantially improved. Deiz talk 12:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Other articles that have the things you site are often tagged as such, and given time to improve. I'm not sure why you immediately went to just get rid of it. Blitz Tiger 10:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, well written? How about well sourced? Well verified? Not original research? Read WP:ATT and explain how this article fits any of our content policies. And, just to reiterate, I founded WP:CKY and am well aware of how this fits into the CKY universe. It just doesn't fit into Wikipedia. Deiz talk 03:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. "it's pretty much unsourcable" says it all. --kingboyk 15:14, 15 March 2007 (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.
