Talk:Falling Up (band)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] "Recreation of deleted article"?
Why was this article deleted in the first place? Was it before the band released a CD with a decently major Christian record label? (Also, see Falling Up (album).) --Idont Havaname 03:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Note for those years from now who are looking back at this - Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Falling Up (band) was the original VFD. The article was created yesterday and accidentally speedy deleted as a recreation of a deleted article. --SPUI (talk) 23:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Merge
This should probably be merged with Falling Up, as the band and the album are closely related. I have tagged this article with a merge tag; if you disagree, please discuss here. Apologies if I lose interest in this; I guess I'm somewhat of a policy wanker, and have made this specific problem of VFD/VFU my current crusade. Now that it's over, I hope others will come in to deal with whether this should be merged, so I can go back to transportation-related stuff. --SPUI (talk) 23:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- They should not be merged. The album and the band are different - The album is by a band called Digby, not Falling Up. JamesBurns 04:09, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Vfu discussion archive
[edit] Falling Up (band)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falling_Up_%28band%29 was deleted by a VFD apparently around April 9th, unknown to me. I never knew a falling up band article had ever been created, and I wrote an entirely new one. The main reason given for the band to be deleted was that they had made only one CD independantly and were therefore non-notable, whereas in reality they were signed on to BEC recordings, a major Christian label that also produces for big Christian Contemporary names like Jeremy Camp, Kutless. (Take a look at http://www.becrecordings.com/front.php). As well, there is a precedent for single-album Christian Contemporary bands on the wikipedia--for example, Casting crowns. To summarize My article was different from the article deleted and should, at the least, get a separate VFD. The reason for the VFD (independant release and therefore non-notability) was untrue since they were signed on to BEC. Please put my article back :) -Cookiemobsta
- Agreed that a separate VFD is needed if it wasn't a re-creation of the old one. Can an admin verify this? --SPUI (talk) 23:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Undelete. The first version (that went through VfD) simply stated that Falling Up was a Christian rock band and then listed its members. Comments in the VfD mentioned the lack of notability. The latest version, while a stub, is more informative and offers at least a basis for notability. I don't know enough about the labels to make a call on that basis, but I wouldn't consider this version a recreation of the deleted article. SWAdair | Talk 05:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep deleted. VfU is not to be used to try to get VfD votes redone. RickK 21:30, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Unless the article is a re-creation, rather than a new article that was created, deletion policy clearly states that it must be separately VFDed. This at the very least prevents me from writing a substub that says "Stephen King was a man. He was not a dragon-man." and taking it through VFD, and then using that as a rationale to delete any article on Stephen King. You've done this before and you're doing it again. Please stop trolling. That has to be what you're doing, as you've been informed before that the deletion policy clearly protects articles like this.
- Is there some way for both the old and new revisions to be undeleted temporarily? Like a full history undeletion rather than just the most recent article? It would be nice to verify that in fact the two articles were different. --SPUI (talk) 21:40, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, by the way, this VFU is not for trying to redo the VFD. It's for trying to undo what seems to be an improper (though possibly well-intentioned) speedy. --SPUI (talk) 22:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Weak undelete. They are listed on allmusic.com but have no written entry. Gamaliel 22:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- For the record, this reason may be invalid, since it treats this like another VFD on the subject. The main issue here is whether the recent speedy was valid. According to the nominator, it was not the same article; good faith is the only thing to go by here, until we have some other evidence either way. --SPUI (talk) 22:31, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- By the way, making my vote clear - undelete unless we have evidence that the two articles were the same. --SPUI (talk) 22:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I have undeleted my original deletion. I sincerely apologize to Cookiemobsta for the confusion. I gave improper weight to the given speedy reason of VFD recreation and did a hasty and insufficient scan of the content without properly comparing the two versions. I will be more careful in the future. - BanyanTree 22:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Undelete - an article is only considered a reincarnation subject to speedy deletion if it is the same (or substantially so) to the article that was VFD'd. Since this article was different, according to several posters, it should have gone through the standard VFD process, not been speedied. Firebug 04:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- It's exactly the same article. The only difference has to do with how extensive the verbiage is. The original VfD had to do with notability, not about whether or not the article was skimpy. There were three delete votes, no keeps, and all three had to do with the band's notability, not about the size of the article. RickK 05:31, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
- I urge you to reread deletion policy, and stop second-guessing the policy when it doesn't jive with your view of things. --SPUI (talk) 11:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Please point to the deletion policy which allows an article to be recreated after VfD, to be listed for one day on VfU, to be recreated after being on VfU for one day, to have its listing be deleted from VfU after being here for one day, and not being listed on VfD after having been recreated, in violation of the policy on this very page? RickK 19:28, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
- The article was not recreated. The listing was removed because the article was speedied in error, and the deleter fixed his error. --SPUI (talk) 21:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- What do you mean, the article was not recreated? You mean that the VfD was for an article that never existed? Or that once the VfD had passed its time, it was never deleted? Sorry, the history proves otherwise. The article was not speedied in error, it is Wikipedia policy to delete recreations of articles which have been voted for deletion. RickK 23:12, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
- The article was not recreated. The listing was removed because the article was speedied in error, and the deleter fixed his error. --SPUI (talk) 21:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Please point to the deletion policy which allows an article to be recreated after VfD, to be listed for one day on VfU, to be recreated after being on VfU for one day, to have its listing be deleted from VfU after being here for one day, and not being listed on VfD after having been recreated, in violation of the policy on this very page? RickK 19:28, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
- I urge you to reread deletion policy, and stop second-guessing the policy when it doesn't jive with your view of things. --SPUI (talk) 11:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- It's exactly the same article. The only difference has to do with how extensive the verbiage is. The original VfD had to do with notability, not about whether or not the article was skimpy. There were three delete votes, no keeps, and all three had to do with the band's notability, not about the size of the article. RickK 05:31, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Undelete. From looking at the old article and the new one, they're very clearly different. Additionally, BanyanTree has admitted it was a mistake to delete it. Unfortunately his attempt at rectifying the situation has been held up. Even if you wanted to look at the old VFD, the delete votes were because the article didn't establish notability and the new article does that. CryptoDerk 23:50, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
- They are not clearly different. They are about the exact same band. The original VfD was about the band's notability, not about how well the article was written. RickK 04:11, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Please step back for one moment and read the policies. The articles are different. The band is not, but the deletion policy pertains to the article, not the subject. --SPUI (talk) 04:43, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The content of the article is different, period. What the article refers to is the same thing, but the content is different. "Notability not established" seems to me as if it refers to the article itself. If they had said "not notable" then I would have taken it to refer to the band itself. Anyway, I've asked Radiant just to be sure. CryptoDerk 04:46, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks for that. Whenever I vote "notability not established", I would be willing to reconsider it if/when additional facts come up. WP:MUSIC comes to mind. Given that it is under heavy debate here whether the new and old articles are different, I'd be willing to take it on good faith and take the new article to VfD for re-evaluation. Thus, undelete. Radiant_* 08:04, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
- They are not clearly different. They are about the exact same band. The original VfD was about the band's notability, not about how well the article was written. RickK 04:11, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Just a note - I have posted an RFC on RickK about these and other similar actions. --SPUI (talk) 00:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Deleted, while the author may argue it is a different article, it is still the same band and the same reasons to delete it remain the same. I was the person responsible for the original nomination - the band is not notable, they have produced only one album on an independent label. The consensus was to delete. JamesBurns 04:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Undelete. I have read Radiant's comment, and the VfD debate. I agree that "Notability not established" is different from "not notable". If the rewritten article establishes notability, it should not be speedy deleted as a recreation, and deserves a second go on VfD. Sjakkalle 13:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*Undelete. Based upon what I have read, this article has significantly changed and improved, enough so that it should be undeleted to have a second chance to experience further organic growth and expansion. (This is a vote in support for undeletion on an undeletion-related page.) --GRider\talk 23:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) GRider is forbidden to vote on deletion matters as a result of an arbcomm ruling. RickK 23:41, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Undeleted. It was improperly speedied, so I have undone the error. Take it to VfD if you want it gone, this isn't the same article as before. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:23, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
- The old and new article are at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RickK#Response for all to see. --SPUI (talk) 23:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Undelete. RickK, is it that time of the month or something? Or did you forget that Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia ("A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically"), not a medium for you to show off your ability (and misplaced willingness) to follow rules to the letter. When it's convenient for you, of course... ugen64 02:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Undelete. Shouldn't have been deleted. The sooner this process ends, the better. What does it serve except to stir up hostility? Rick, please reconsider and just let it go.Grace Note 03:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I'll let it go on April 27, after the appropriate 5 day VfU vote time has passed. RickK 04:06, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Fine. No one can prevent you from creating and sustaining a focus of hostility, resentment and flaming. I'm just really disappointed that a user of such good standing feels that any of that helps build an encyclopaedia.Grace Note 06:42, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I'll let it go on April 27, after the appropriate 5 day VfU vote time has passed. RickK 04:06, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
- WP:POINT. We can all see its contents in its last two incarnations at RickK's RFC, we can all see that they're about the same band, and we can all see that the most recent one still wouldn't have a snowflake's chance in a frying pan of surviving VFD, since it doesn't come within miles of satisfying WP:NMG. We can leave it on VFD and/or VFU for months in various slightly differing incarnations recreated by various slightly differing sockpuppets if you like, which would, I'm sure, please the band members, both of their fans, and maybe even the radical inclusionists. I submit, however, that this article is precisely the reason why we have speedy deletion criterion G4. Keep deleted. Korath (Talk) 04:47, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
- It is absolutely insane, the only difference between the old article and the new article is that the author has bothered to write their names out on full and the albums tracks in full. It does not change the notability of the band. This is going to set a bad precedent in future if it passes - any article that is speedied can simply be resucitated by just changing the length of a person's or object's name and the author argue that it is a new article. JamesBurns 06:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- What the motherfucking hell are you talking about? Go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RickK#Response. The old one was just a single line and a list of names. The new one has a paragraph at the beginning about the band and a track listing. Stop trolling and choke on autofellatio. --SPUI (talk) 06:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Damn, SPUI, are you off your meds? You have gone completely over the edge. RickK 06:58, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Hah, I bet you thought that was a personal attack too when you typed it. --SPUI (talk) 07:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Well I consider calling someone a troll and telling someone to choke on autofellatio a personal attack. You need to read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. It still doesnt detract from the argument that it is exactly the same band - the argument for its deletion hasnt changed at all. JamesBurns 04:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Hah, I bet you thought that was a personal attack too when you typed it. --SPUI (talk) 07:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Damn, SPUI, are you off your meds? You have gone completely over the edge. RickK 06:58, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
- What the motherfucking hell are you talking about? Go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RickK#Response. The old one was just a single line and a list of names. The new one has a paragraph at the beginning about the band and a track listing. Stop trolling and choke on autofellatio. --SPUI (talk) 06:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- It is absolutely insane, the only difference between the old article and the new article is that the author has bothered to write their names out on full and the albums tracks in full. It does not change the notability of the band. This is going to set a bad precedent in future if it passes - any article that is speedied can simply be resucitated by just changing the length of a person's or object's name and the author argue that it is a new article. JamesBurns 06:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Undelete - Come on guys, this is getting beyond the point of being simply sad. I worry that this kind of silliness is going to embarass all concerned in the future. If Falling Up aren't notable enough to engage your interest - please feel free to abstain from all of the following actions:
-
- Reading the article
- Editing the article
- Recommending the article to friends
- Using the article as an indicator of the general quality of Wikipedia
- and most importantly
- caring whether or not the article exists.
nsh 06:47, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Undelete because (a) the article is entirely unrelated to the old one and therefore not a re-creation, (b) the new version of the article establishes notability, (c) I've heard of Falling Up and (d) hey -- two people wrote articles on the band independently -- this sure isn't your typical article on a one-week-old vanity band that no one has heard of. Wiwaxia 07:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep deleted. The article is almost identical, VfD procedure was followed, no irregularities have been shown. It was listed for the correct period, there were no keep votes and it was properly deleted. In my opinion this article was properly deleted and attempt to recreate this article should be summarily deleted. No evidence has been presented to suggest that undeleting this article would make Wikipedia better. On Dante's recreations, I cite WP:POINT and will now redelete. I consider what has gone on here to be a serious abuse of process. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- On Tony's "citation" above, I cite Wikipedia:No personal attacks and await an apology. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:58, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
- I freely apologise for any offence given (See User talk:Dante Alighieri and, for what provoked it, User talk:Tony Sidaway) but still contend that the deliberate recreation of an article already speedied by an administrator as a recreation, is an abuse of process. We can legitimately disagree on whether this is the case without attacking one another. I contend that it is essential to the deletion process that no administrator should ever feel comfortable about recreating an article in these circumstances when we all know that the right place for recreations is VfU, where we all get to discuss things out in the open. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I apologize for misunderstanding Tony's previous statement. I took offense to what I believed was being said, not what Tony meant. My position is that the VfU process is not being circumvented, but is inappropriate in this situation, seeing as how the article in question was improperly speedy deleted. It is standard procedure when an article is improperly speedy deleted to recreate the article so that it can go through the proper VfD procedure. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:46, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
- I freely apologise for any offence given (See User talk:Dante Alighieri and, for what provoked it, User talk:Tony Sidaway) but still contend that the deliberate recreation of an article already speedied by an administrator as a recreation, is an abuse of process. We can legitimately disagree on whether this is the case without attacking one another. I contend that it is essential to the deletion process that no administrator should ever feel comfortable about recreating an article in these circumstances when we all know that the right place for recreations is VfU, where we all get to discuss things out in the open. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- On Tony's "citation" above, I cite Wikipedia:No personal attacks and await an apology. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:58, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Undelete, notable band, valid article. Grue 17:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Deleted, not noteworthy. Not valid article for a VfU, imho. -- RyanFreisling @ 17:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment It has been claimed that the current article gives information that makes the band more notable. I think it's a reasonable assumption--why else would anyone add the information? But the earlier article claimed that they'd made a CD, whereas the current article makes it plain that it was a demo CD. On the other hand, the current article says they signed to a record label., and yes, they did sign to a record label, the one that also signed Kutless. Does this make them as notable as Kutless? Their website contains messages such as "2.18.05 hey the Xtour has begun and it is going good!" and "4.06.05 if you have missed us at shows lately, it's because we have not been playing any." What happened in the intervening six weeks? The only other tour on their website apparently involved quite a few church gigs alongside a number of other bands. How would these guys fare under the Notability and music guidelines of WikiProject Music? On the other hand, I don't want to go overboard. The Beatles played in Hamburg for months on end and didn't really get anywhere. I suppose mostly I'm annoyed that , in my opinion, this article was recreated after it was deleted, and while the VfU process was in progress. It looks to me as if there is not sufficient respect for the deletion process and the undeletion process, and this has produced an unwanted deletion war. We don't need that kind of thing if we can all agree to use VfD and VfU, and abide by policy on speedying of recreations, without quibbles. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. The individual who "recreated" the article is not the same person who wrote the initial article. This should quiet the assertions that somehow the "same" user recreated the "same" article in order to circumvent the previous deletion vote. (see User talk:Cookiemobsta for details). --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:53, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Agreed. This is about an article on the same group, with the same name, but created by a different person. The author of the initial article has changed. Do we have consensus for restoration of the article in this form? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Well... if the SD was legit, we can't undelete it until tomorrow anyway and we don't need consensus, just a majority. If the SD wasn't legit, the article should be undeleted immediately and consensus here is irrelevant. IMO, what we should be discussing is whether or not the SD was in line with policy. There is such a discussion taking place here if people care to be involved. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:05, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
- UNDELETE -Deserves a rewrite by Cookiemobster.--Jondel 04:36, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Back to normal talk
[edit] Second VfD
The result of relisting this article on VfD was to keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Falling Up (band) for a record. Postdlf 07:19, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
