Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Think of Me
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 of the debate was 'delete all
[edit] Think of Me
nn songs in a musical. Pertinent information has been merged into The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical), some pages contain BLATANT copyvio, some involve a non-technical recreation of the score. Unnecessary MusicMaker5376 05:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC) Other Pages Also Nominated
- Angel of Music
- Little Lotte
- I Remember.../Stranger Than You Dreamt It
- Magical Lasso
- Poor Fool, He Makes Me Laugh (Il Muto)
- Why Have You Brought Me Here?/Raoul, I've Been There
- All I Ask of You
- All I Ask of You (Reprise)
- Why So Silent...?
- Notes...
- Twisted Every Way
- Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again
- Wandering Child
- Don Juan
- The Point of No Return
- Down Once More.../Track Down This Murderer
- Merge into The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical)--TBC
??? ??? ??? 05:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Has already been merged. -- MusicMaker5376 06:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as the synopsis in The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical) is sufficient. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment My opinion applies only to the initial article, not to the supplementaries added after the initial nomination. (aeropagitica) (talk) 09:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, you were just quick and got to this before I had the chance to put up the other pages. -- MusicMaker5376 20:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Copyvio; unnecessary articles. Mademoiselle Sabina 06:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Decouple, and consider each case separately. I think Think of Me should have its own article, though the current is worthless, and could be deleted without prejudice to a new article. I'm not going to review each and every article, and doubt many will. So each needs its own AFD. --Rob 09:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Wouldn't decoupling imply the need to review each article separately? They're all songs from the same musical; they all contain more or less the same information -- information now contained in The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical). Some are tried to be made larger and more important by including such non-necessary information as key, meter, number of measures, etc. -- MusicMaker5376 20:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Bulk merges are fine. You can use {{mergeto}} and talk page discussion to do that. Bulk deletion is not ok in this case, as it involved the permanent removal of information, and requires individual attention. Also, if you did a true merge (e.g. kept signficant amounts of content), then deletion isn't even allowed (though I suspect you meant facts not actual content was kept, which isn't really a merge). BTW, why have you listed Masquerade, a disambiguation page, for deletion? Masquerade (song) was merged in June of 2005 (after a prior AFD). Also, I think The Point of No Return is an ok article, that has information not in the main article, and it should be kept as a stand-alone article. It has information not in the main article. Also, while these were all written for the stage musical, they could evolve to properly discuss the 2004 film, which, it is my understanding, has the same songs, but with certain notable differences (I don't know for sure, as I only saw the movie). Many comparisons would be to detailed to note in the main articles, but could be mentioned in each song article. --Rob 08:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Point of no Return does, indeed, have information not included in the main article. However, it still fails all fourteen criteria on song notablilty here. Furthermore, the information it contains is not necessarily important to the plot of the play or the movie, nor is it otherwise musically signifigant. -- MusicMaker5376 19:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think we should have sixteen different pages to discuss the differences between the play and the movie in excrusciating detail. The differences in the Phantom's costumes between stage and film versions are certainly non-encyclopedic and should be left to a fansite. MAJOR differences between the play and the movie can certainly be tackled in one article in the future. -- MusicMaker5376 19:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- You missed my entire point. If I wanted sixteen stand-alone articles, I would have voted "Keep all". I didn't. I said I wished to decouple, and consider them separately. The easiest thing to do at this point, is redirect all of them (without deletion), and then, in the future, anybody may undo the redirect, and expand the article. Do you oppose a redirect? If so why? What is the need for deletion? I think you're under the false impression, that if we don't delete all of them now, we we'll have stand-alone articles now. That's not so. You need to explain what purpose deletion serves, that a simple redirect does not. --Rob 21:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Redirecting these articles would simply point them back to the article from which they're being linked. In every instance (save one slightly misguided link), the only articles to which these articles are linked are either other articles up for deletion or the main Phantom of the Opera article. Several of the articles link to the next song in the musical, forming an unnecessary chain of related articles. -- MusicMaker5376 22:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Circular linking can easily be fixed by delinking where appropriate. If somebody types in "Think of Me" in the search box, what do you want them to see? Should they be redirected to The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical) or should they get the message "No page with that title exists. You can create this article or request it". I prefer the first result. --Rob 23:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- I don't really think someone would be apt to search for "Think of Me" before they search for "Phantom of the Opera", which, of course, hearkens back to the notability issue. Should someone first search for "Think of Me" and come up emptyhanded, their next search would be for "Phantom of the Opera" or "Andrew Lloyd Webber" -- both of which would eventually direct the search to the POTO page. Furthermore, it was my impression that we're trying to reduce the number of redirects out there. -- MusicMaker5376 23:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Circular linking can easily be fixed by delinking where appropriate. If somebody types in "Think of Me" in the search box, what do you want them to see? Should they be redirected to The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical) or should they get the message "No page with that title exists. You can create this article or request it". I prefer the first result. --Rob 23:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Redirecting these articles would simply point them back to the article from which they're being linked. In every instance (save one slightly misguided link), the only articles to which these articles are linked are either other articles up for deletion or the main Phantom of the Opera article. Several of the articles link to the next song in the musical, forming an unnecessary chain of related articles. -- MusicMaker5376 22:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- You missed my entire point. If I wanted sixteen stand-alone articles, I would have voted "Keep all". I didn't. I said I wished to decouple, and consider them separately. The easiest thing to do at this point, is redirect all of them (without deletion), and then, in the future, anybody may undo the redirect, and expand the article. Do you oppose a redirect? If so why? What is the need for deletion? I think you're under the false impression, that if we don't delete all of them now, we we'll have stand-alone articles now. That's not so. You need to explain what purpose deletion serves, that a simple redirect does not. --Rob 21:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Added: Another advantage of stand-alone articles, is it includes the ability to link from multiple articles. A song article could be mentioned in the bio articles of the lead singer(s), the stage musical, and the 2004 film. Somebody may be interested in all the Phantom songs sung by Butler in the 2004 film (with comparison to his stage predecessor), but not the other songs. Rather then give a detailed descussion in Butler's bio, give links to the songs, for more depth. Generally merges make sense when the information only relates to one central master article, but I don't think that's the case here. --Rob 08:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand your argument, here. The songs sung by Butler in the film are almost exactly (and I say "almost" only because I'm not 100% sure) the same as in the stage version. However, the above proposed differences between film and stage versions article would almost certainly answer that question. -- MusicMaker5376 19:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Removed Masquerade. Not up for deletion.
- Bulk merges are fine. You can use {{mergeto}} and talk page discussion to do that. Bulk deletion is not ok in this case, as it involved the permanent removal of information, and requires individual attention. Also, if you did a true merge (e.g. kept signficant amounts of content), then deletion isn't even allowed (though I suspect you meant facts not actual content was kept, which isn't really a merge). BTW, why have you listed Masquerade, a disambiguation page, for deletion? Masquerade (song) was merged in June of 2005 (after a prior AFD). Also, I think The Point of No Return is an ok article, that has information not in the main article, and it should be kept as a stand-alone article. It has information not in the main article. Also, while these were all written for the stage musical, they could evolve to properly discuss the 2004 film, which, it is my understanding, has the same songs, but with certain notable differences (I don't know for sure, as I only saw the movie). Many comparisons would be to detailed to note in the main articles, but could be mentioned in each song article. --Rob 08:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Wouldn't decoupling imply the need to review each article separately? They're all songs from the same musical; they all contain more or less the same information -- information now contained in The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical). Some are tried to be made larger and more important by including such non-necessary information as key, meter, number of measures, etc. -- MusicMaker5376 20:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, copyvio and merge to The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical). --Terence Ong 13:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 15:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all per MusicMaker5376. -- Kjkolb 21:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- 'Delete as copyvio and redirect all to the opera article. If an encyclopedic article can be created at a later date on any of these songs, the new redirect can be undone and the article written. -- Saberwyn 21:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as now merged. Offer editor a new user some support though. Funky Monkey 00:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- That's a really good idea. I went over and offered some words of support too. Mademoiselle Sabina 01:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I just removed the link for Phantom of the Opera -- it is the page for the book and is not up for deletion.
- 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.
