- List of fastest-selling albums in the United States (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
- List of fastest-selling albums in the United Kingdom (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Deleted from result of discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fastest selling albums worldwide. The discussion was ambiguous whether it was for the main AFD article to for these two related articles. There was not a strong consensus either way, and much of the delete discussion was based on what the time period for "fast selling" entailed (the context of both articles specified it was a single week), which could be solved by renaming to something similar to the existing List of biggest opening weekends. Musicbuff3643 (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to "no consensus" – There were some rather poor arguments on both sides of the discussion, and as a result I don't think anyone really out on top, even if those were completely discounted. –MuZemike 05:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep The principal delete argument was NOT DIRECTORY. This reason does not apply here, and should have been rejected by the closing admin.(who, gave no explanation of his closure at the AfD, so I assume he agreed with the arguments raised) A list of the top anything is not a directory; a directory is indiscriminate, which means it includes everything with no rational criterion. There can be reasonable argument about where the cutoff should be, and whether it is possible to draw a cutoff objectively enough for there to be an article, but it is not indiscriminate and therefore p-asses NOT DIRECTORY. The only other argument was that the links were dead, which is also not sufficient reason unless it can be shown there are no alternative links available or other ways of reaching the information. DGG ( talk ) 15:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree there; that is tantamount to substituting the administrator's own view in the AFD close – something in which closing administrators are constantly being told to avoid doing. –MuZemike 22:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of the deletion rationales were very good, but the keep rationales were rather weak too. I fail to see why we should overturn this discussion to keep when more discussion is need to determine consensus. --Anthem 09:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. As I wrote on the initial page, it's rather trivial; unlike opening box office receipts for films, this is not a well-recognized metric, and "fellest selling" is ambiguous as to time period. Second, it should be noted that two "keeps" were by new users (with 124 and 50 total edits, respectively), and neither gave a strong policy-based argument for keeping the article; it therefore makes sense to weigh these comments less in the decision making project. Neutralitytalk 05:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As I wrote on the initial page, this is taking issue with the article's name, not its content which specified it was based on a single week's sales, which even if that wasn't the case many reputable sources nearly universally refer to an album as fast selling based on single weeks.--Musicbuff3643 (talk) 08:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus - the arguments were pretty poor on both sides. I can see consensus to delete the main list, but not these two. Analysis: noms' argument doesn't provide a policy based rational apart from the fact that they are unsourced, which shouldn't be a stand-alone rationale for deletion. Doomsdayer argued per the fact that Wikipedia is not a directory, which is a strong argument for the worldwide list. It doesn't necessarily apply to the country-specific lists, and I think Musicbuff3643 effectively rebutted most of the argument. N5iln's delete !vote was just pointing at policy, whereas Richard Arthur Norton provided no real justification for keeping at all, apart from contradicting the nominator's stance on the sources. Gabe 19 commented about the weakness of the sourcing, but didn't provide any policy based reason as to why the article was "unnecessary". Arxiloxos supported Musicbuff's arguments with a source which very vaguely supported the notability of the country-specific lists topics and (sensibly) argued that the US/UK lists should be renamed and kept. Jewish Princess simply claimed the article was encyclopaedic, and while Neutrality is correct that the period over which the albums were fast-selling needs to be specified in the lists, they did not justify their delete !vote based on policy. There seems to be an overriding consensus to delete the world list, but I can't see any reason why the closing administrator took the very weak arguments for deletion to be stronger than those for keeping the UK and US lists. A no consensus close would encourage further discussion about the future of these lists, either leading them to be sorted out or removed from the project if there is sufficient consensus to do so. Anthem 09:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - "I disagree" is not a valid reason to file a DRV, closer's finding is a reasonable reading of the debate. Tarc (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the decision was close but the right decision was made. fr33kman 03:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus. I don't see that the discussion ever reached consensus on whether these were potentially resolvable content problems, or were unsalvageable. Because the discussion on this point was inadequate, and the central policy issues weren't clearly addressed in the discussion, it wasn't appropriate for the closer to force the issue -- list articles, assuming no argument compelling deletion, are a type where community sentiment carries heavier weight. The Lady Gaga/Amazon thing (which phrase ought to be a double entendre) may also mean that some more reliable sourcing on the general topic has become available since the AFD. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn to no consensus per Anthem and Hullaballo. This almost seems to be a keep. And there's no compelling policy reason to make this a delete rather than a no consensus close. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus, per Muzemike. It appears to be snowing.—S Marshall T/C 07:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse- this could have been close as no consensus, but a delete is not unreasonable. The votes advocating deletion seemed well grounded in policy so I can't say this was a poor reading of consensus. Reyk YO! 20:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to NC per Anthem (yes, I know he's a blocked sock). Hobit (talk) 01:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to No Consensus The articles aren't there now, and Google cache doesn't show them either. So no way to see what was sourced or not. If the news media gives it this topic coverage, its notable, and anything in the article not yet sourced could've been challenged with a [citation needed] tag and removed. Dream Focus 23:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - The DRV nomination is essentially based on the notion that there was no "strong consensus" either way, which I think is a fair statement. It wasn't a slam dunk. However, AfD's don't require "strong consensus" in order to be closed in some way other than No Consensus. All they require is regular old consensus. The closer weighed the strength of the arguments (and the arguers), and in my opinion, made a completely reasonable close. If the DRV nominator thinks that he/she has a way to correct the perceived flaws with the article, they should be allowed to reconstruct the article in their userspace and gain approval here before moving it back to mainspace. —SW— spout 23:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to 'no consensus' due to the balance of opinions. Some of the 'keep' arguments were poor ("This looks like a standard Wikipedia article,") but there were enough half-way decent ones IMO. ╟─TreasuryTag►tortfeasor─╢ 09:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
