Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Da Realist
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 to Plies (rapper), in the absence of any reliably-sourced material beyond the name of the album. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Da Realist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Originally proposed for deletion, I thought consensus would be better to settle it. As for my actual vote, I say Redirect to Plies (rapper), as there's not enough third-party info yet, but when such becomes available, it can be restored without a lengthly Deletion review process. Tom Danson (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has sources that say that the album is real and that Plies is recording new songs for it. SE KinG (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No reliable sources. Wordpress is for PR releases. Corvus cornixtalk 21:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Plies myspace says "DA REALEST COMING IN DECEMBER" or whatever it says. SE KinG (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't even mention the Myspace link in my comment because I thought it was obvious. MySpace is not and has never been considered a reliable source. Corvus cornixtalk 21:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to mention a single has already been released and the fact that on "Definition of Real" it says something like "Da Realist... third times a charm." or something. SE KinG (talk) 03:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - Adding on. How about Plies official website? Last time I checked, a lot of album articles use artists official sites as reliable references.
- I didn't even mention the Myspace link in my comment because I thought it was obvious. MySpace is not and has never been considered a reliable source. Corvus cornixtalk 21:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Plies myspace says "DA REALEST COMING IN DECEMBER" or whatever it says. SE KinG (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NM, lack of reliable sources, MySpace pages are not a reliable source. DiverseMentality(Discuss it) 23:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Redirect to Plies (rapper), official site confirms album. DiverseMentality(Discuss it) 04:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. What good do you feel deletion will do that redirection won't do just as well? Tom Danson (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem with redirection, if you can find a reliable source to indicate that the album is actually going to be called that. Corvus cornixtalk 18:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Edited the reference to a more reliable source, which is part of the artist's Record Label's. [1]
Carlols 88 10:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which makes that link a primary source and therefore not a reliable one. Corvus cornixtalk 18:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would a source thats part of the artists record label not be reliable? Have you got no clue of the music industry? What good would passing on incorrect information be to them? Exactly, nothing at all, look at the bottom of the website..Carlols 88 22:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please remember to remain civil, and please read Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources. Corvus cornixtalk 18:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, my bad on that, you havent answered my question though, why is a site partially owned by a record label an unreliable source? Its in no way in their best interest to provide with incorrect information, therefor reliable as far as I know, I see no reason to either delete or Redirect this. Carlols 88 21:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Primary sources fail Wikipedai's conflict of interest guideline. Corvus cornixtalk 19:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Far as I know, its a reliable source and it fits the description of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources, may I quote "Primary sources — writings on or about a topic by key figures of the topic — may be allowable, but should be restricted to purely descriptive explanations of the subject or its core concepts." Purely descriptive of the subject and its core concepts, therefor allowed? --Carlols 88 (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Beating a dead horse. Corvus cornixtalk 20:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite beating a dead horse, since you still haven't answered anything I asked? Besides posting a few wiki links that work in your disadvantage (read, my previous post), links provided by the people in charge of artists and their releases will be seen reliable for the entire world, could you try to explain me in your own words why they would be unreliable, instead of posting this wiki page that just has a lot of words in it but doesnt say anything, really. --Carlols 88 (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You've been given your answer. Provide a reliable source. The link to the record company's own website is not a reliable source. I've repeatedly pointed you to guidelines and policies on this issue, which you apparently refuse to read. This is the last comment I have to say on this subject. The closing admin will make the final decision as to whether it's a reliable source, but I have given you plenty of time to find one. Corvus cornixtalk 22:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite beating a dead horse, since you still haven't answered anything I asked? Besides posting a few wiki links that work in your disadvantage (read, my previous post), links provided by the people in charge of artists and their releases will be seen reliable for the entire world, could you try to explain me in your own words why they would be unreliable, instead of posting this wiki page that just has a lot of words in it but doesnt say anything, really. --Carlols 88 (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Beating a dead horse. Corvus cornixtalk 20:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Far as I know, its a reliable source and it fits the description of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources, may I quote "Primary sources — writings on or about a topic by key figures of the topic — may be allowable, but should be restricted to purely descriptive explanations of the subject or its core concepts." Purely descriptive of the subject and its core concepts, therefor allowed? --Carlols 88 (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Primary sources fail Wikipedai's conflict of interest guideline. Corvus cornixtalk 19:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, my bad on that, you havent answered my question though, why is a site partially owned by a record label an unreliable source? Its in no way in their best interest to provide with incorrect information, therefor reliable as far as I know, I see no reason to either delete or Redirect this. Carlols 88 21:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please remember to remain civil, and please read Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources. Corvus cornixtalk 18:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Plies (rapper), album fails WP:MUSIC, no mergeworthy, verifiable content that isn't already in target article.
The name of the album is backed by the reliable, primary source given above. Primary sources can very well be used to extract facts, and it is in that respect the most reliable source of all. AmaltheaTalk 13:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.