Talk:Impersonator (album)
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Koyyo in topic "Restore redirect from non-notable album"
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
"Restore redirect from non-notable album"
edit@Polyamorph: What on earth about this page indicates that this album is non-notable? Explain yourself. Koyyo (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- WP:NALBUM. There is zero evidence of significant coverage on this page. Songs and albums which don't have significant coverage should not have an independent page and instead redirect to the artist or relevant article. Polyamorph (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Polyamorph: Again, what are you talking about? You are acting like this page is a stub without any sources, which it is not. "Zero evidence"? I can't tell if you are being serious. Koyyo (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- You have expanded the article since I posted here. It was a stub, and yes it had sources but nothing more than trivial mentions at the time. I still don't feel that it meets our requirements in WP:NALBUM for an independent page but have no particular interest in pursuing the matter.Polyamorph (talk) 09:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Polyamorph: I know I have expanded the article. I was already planning to, as I do on all the articles I create. But that is frankly irrelevant. The page at the time was a stub, which is perfectly fine. A page being a stub does not justify your actions of deleting all the information on the page and redirecting back to the artist. And you may still feel that it does not meet the requirements on WP:NALBUM but I'm letting you know that you are wrong. It seems as though it's hard for you to admit when your actions are wrong but let it be known that in this case they were. Look at the page. It is clearly a notable album with coverage by a significant number of reliable sources. So please save the patently false excuse of saying there is "zero evidence of significant coverage". This is first time I have seen someone like yourself behave this way. I expect a lot better from a veteran editor like yourself. Koyyo (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Most of the references, whilst reliable, do not represent significant coverage. Per WP:NALBUM "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography". It is ok to disagree. I've politely said I don't have any particular interest in pursuing this further, so I kindly ask you to please stop pinging me on this matter.Polyamorph (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Polyamorph: And there is enough material to warrant a "reasonably detailed article" beyond a stub. This isn't a particularly subjective matter, a simple Google search would show you that this album is notable. You did not even bother discussing this in any way with myself or others. You just removed everything I had wrote and redirected the article. If I was a new user I could understand that; that would be a safe assumption to make while patrolling that the new user just created the page and perhaps it wasn't up to standards even for a stub nor did the newcomer have plans to expand the article. But I am not a new user. You could have took the seconds of time to see this and at least discuss it. The article I created established notability and had proper formatting and language, something you don't see from most newcomers. You can keep acting like you are politely approaching this situation but your actions that initiated this were not polite, they were bold and impetuous. As for the pinging, I am responding directly to you responding to me. If you wish to leave it there then leave it there. But let it be known that your actions were not reasonable and were actually inconsiderate given the information that was provided. Koyyo (talk) 06:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree with you. That is ok. Stop hounding me and please, for the second time of asking, do not ping me again.Polyamorph (talk) 06:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Polyamorph: Again, I am responding to you responding to me. It is perfectly reasonable to @ a user who you are directly responding to. What you are doing is not disagreeing with me, you are running away from your actions. If you actually believed that this article had "zero evidence of significant coverage" then you would pursue removing the article but you aren't because you know that is a fatuous excuse for your impulsive and inconsiderate editing, behavior unbecoming of a veteran editor. Maybe next time consider actually discussing such bold and irresponsible moves before you do so in cases like this. Koyyo (talk) 06:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- I am not running away, my redirect was justified. You disagree, which is fine, hence you reverted it back. There is no problem with any of this. I request you stop with the personal attacks and respect my request not to be ping'ed any further. Polyamorph (talk) 06:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Polyamorph: Your redirect was not justified. It was bold, inconsiderate and irresponsible. You took no time to discuss it with me or anyone else. You could have even labeled the page with a tag if you felt it did not fully establish notability. I am not making any ad hominem attacks. It is not a personal attack to say veteran editors do not edit that way, I am only stating my experience. I have never seen any established or veteran editor just glibly delete a stub album page that has an infobox, artwork, full critical reception section with reliable sources and then redirect it and say there was "zero evidence of significant coverage". And I am pinging you because I am responding directly to something you said. You are not simply saying "I disagree and wish to not pursue it any further", you are adding terse defenses of your actions which paint your behavior in an incorrect light and then getting mad that I am responding to them. If you wish for me to not respond to you then don't provide something for me to respond to. Koyyo (talk) 07:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- I am entitled to defend myself. Now leave me the fuck alone. Polyamorph (talk) 07:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- And I am entitled to respond to you and your weak defenses of your impetuous and irresponsible editing. Next time slow down and actually take the time to discuss such bold edits. Koyyo (talk) 07:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- I am entitled to defend myself. Now leave me the fuck alone. Polyamorph (talk) 07:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Polyamorph: Your redirect was not justified. It was bold, inconsiderate and irresponsible. You took no time to discuss it with me or anyone else. You could have even labeled the page with a tag if you felt it did not fully establish notability. I am not making any ad hominem attacks. It is not a personal attack to say veteran editors do not edit that way, I am only stating my experience. I have never seen any established or veteran editor just glibly delete a stub album page that has an infobox, artwork, full critical reception section with reliable sources and then redirect it and say there was "zero evidence of significant coverage". And I am pinging you because I am responding directly to something you said. You are not simply saying "I disagree and wish to not pursue it any further", you are adding terse defenses of your actions which paint your behavior in an incorrect light and then getting mad that I am responding to them. If you wish for me to not respond to you then don't provide something for me to respond to. Koyyo (talk) 07:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- I am not running away, my redirect was justified. You disagree, which is fine, hence you reverted it back. There is no problem with any of this. I request you stop with the personal attacks and respect my request not to be ping'ed any further. Polyamorph (talk) 06:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Polyamorph: Again, I am responding to you responding to me. It is perfectly reasonable to @ a user who you are directly responding to. What you are doing is not disagreeing with me, you are running away from your actions. If you actually believed that this article had "zero evidence of significant coverage" then you would pursue removing the article but you aren't because you know that is a fatuous excuse for your impulsive and inconsiderate editing, behavior unbecoming of a veteran editor. Maybe next time consider actually discussing such bold and irresponsible moves before you do so in cases like this. Koyyo (talk) 06:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree with you. That is ok. Stop hounding me and please, for the second time of asking, do not ping me again.Polyamorph (talk) 06:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Polyamorph: And there is enough material to warrant a "reasonably detailed article" beyond a stub. This isn't a particularly subjective matter, a simple Google search would show you that this album is notable. You did not even bother discussing this in any way with myself or others. You just removed everything I had wrote and redirected the article. If I was a new user I could understand that; that would be a safe assumption to make while patrolling that the new user just created the page and perhaps it wasn't up to standards even for a stub nor did the newcomer have plans to expand the article. But I am not a new user. You could have took the seconds of time to see this and at least discuss it. The article I created established notability and had proper formatting and language, something you don't see from most newcomers. You can keep acting like you are politely approaching this situation but your actions that initiated this were not polite, they were bold and impetuous. As for the pinging, I am responding directly to you responding to me. If you wish to leave it there then leave it there. But let it be known that your actions were not reasonable and were actually inconsiderate given the information that was provided. Koyyo (talk) 06:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Most of the references, whilst reliable, do not represent significant coverage. Per WP:NALBUM "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography". It is ok to disagree. I've politely said I don't have any particular interest in pursuing this further, so I kindly ask you to please stop pinging me on this matter.Polyamorph (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Polyamorph: I know I have expanded the article. I was already planning to, as I do on all the articles I create. But that is frankly irrelevant. The page at the time was a stub, which is perfectly fine. A page being a stub does not justify your actions of deleting all the information on the page and redirecting back to the artist. And you may still feel that it does not meet the requirements on WP:NALBUM but I'm letting you know that you are wrong. It seems as though it's hard for you to admit when your actions are wrong but let it be known that in this case they were. Look at the page. It is clearly a notable album with coverage by a significant number of reliable sources. So please save the patently false excuse of saying there is "zero evidence of significant coverage". This is first time I have seen someone like yourself behave this way. I expect a lot better from a veteran editor like yourself. Koyyo (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- You have expanded the article since I posted here. It was a stub, and yes it had sources but nothing more than trivial mentions at the time. I still don't feel that it meets our requirements in WP:NALBUM for an independent page but have no particular interest in pursuing the matter.Polyamorph (talk) 09:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Polyamorph: Again, what are you talking about? You are acting like this page is a stub without any sources, which it is not. "Zero evidence"? I can't tell if you are being serious. Koyyo (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)