Forum:TC:'N Sync

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:'N Sync

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was insufficient consensus for deletion.—Silly Dan (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

'N Sync (talk - history - links - logs)

We have pages on rumours now, do we? No sources, basically a bullshit article. —Unsigned comment by AdmirableAckbar (talk • contribs)

Delete

#'N Sync? More like 'N Suck; delete with extreme prejudice.--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 10:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

  1. Only because I really like the idea of deleting 'N Sync. Now, to get rid of all their ridiculous songs also. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 04:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Note: Ric Olie would like to inform you that this is not a real vote.
  2. Shit article. Hyper delete. Wilhelm screamer 20:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep

  1. See comments. -- Ozzel 00:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. --Eyrezer 00:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Properly cited, and equivalent in notability to several of our other real-world articles. —Silly Dan (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Per Ozzel. jSarek 07:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. LtNOWIS 16:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. Damn you Ozzel :-P KEJ 20:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. Per Ozzel. This is the better of the two options, though I wouldn't be adverse to a merge with redirect. - Lord Hydronium 03:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. Gotta go with Ozzel here. If people come to our site and search for this, they're looking for this specific rumor and should be able to get the "facts" up front, so to speak, rather than having to hunt the "trivia" *shudder* of AotC.Cull Tremayne 03:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. Thefourdotelipsis 02:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge info with AOTC article, without redirect

  1. Created this option per Acky's permission in IRC. Move this information, without a redirect, to the AOTC article under, until we have a more appropriate section, the article's trivia section. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Per him. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 21:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Merge the article, delete the band and anybody who bought any of their songs. Green Tentacle (Talk) 15:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Much as I'd love to say delete...it's valid information that should be merged into AOTC. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. If there's to be an article, there should really be three—about the individuals. The band itself has nothing to do with their "role" in Star Wars. At any rate, because there is nothing official that talks about this, it should go in the BtS for AOTC. Graestan(Talk) 21:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, I want to clarify from my earlier post that this information belongs in the BTS somewhere. Ideally, once that article is done correctly and the Trivia section is zapped, it would fall under a BTS subsection. Toprawa and Ralltiir
  6. Chack Jadson (Talk) 22:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 04:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. I don't see why this wasn't added to the AOTC main article in the first place, such as a BtS section or whatnot. Greyman(Talk) 04:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  9. Per everyone. Unit 8311 17:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Probably not substantial enough for its own entry. KEJ 15:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  10. JMAS Hey, it's me! 04:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  11. Imperialles 14:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  12. Gonk (Gonk!) 19:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  13. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 04:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  14. Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 15:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Okay, I rewrote and cited the article in question. There were some inaccuracies, speculation, and POV, but it should be cleared up now. The story is in fact true, confirmed by Lucasfilm, and it made national media news (which would mean it would be "notable", if we indeed had rules for such a thing). We have precedent for articles on extras cut from the films, so really, a case could easily be made to turn this into 4 articles—but, given that it was 'N Sync that was the subject of attention, and not the particular individuals, I think a single article is appropriate (although redirects would be good). I will say, though, that I'm not 100% on this point, and if people would like 4 articles instead, I'd totally consider it. But any suggestion of deletion (or merge) because of distaste for the subject matter is inappropriate; suggestion to merge it into a trivia section would violate WP:Trivia; and questioning the validity of the content is no longer relevant. Again, I can't argue to keep on account of notability because we have no rules (although this would easily qualify even by Wikipedia's often too harsh standards). But keep is the clear option for me. -- Ozzel 00:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Again, it should be noted that the suggestion to move it to the "Trivia" section of the AOTC article is a temporary measure, since for all intents and purposes (for all of our film articles) the Trivia section is the BTS. As far as leaving this page as is, I oppose there being an article for NSync, which represents the band itself. The band as a whole did not appear in the film, only individual persons. Those members of the band that made appearances should have their own individual articles if anything. Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • That, or rename it "'N Sync controversy" or something. I just think "'N Sync" is the most convenient name. -- Ozzel 00:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Renaming it thusly just makes it worse, though, because then we'll have mainspace articles which, for all intents and purposes, really belong in the Knowledge Bank—if on the site at all, that is. The sourcing, though admirably done effortwise, is little more than a link to gossip pages and discussion forums. Call me a snob if you want to, but "merge w/o redirect" is the only real choice if we want to maintain our credibility as an encyclopedia (among other issues).—Unsigned comment by Goodwood (talk • contribs)
        • Well, you snob (*wink wink*), the sources are from major entertainment sites and include direct quotes from members of 'N Sync and Lucasfilm. If you're somehow implying that that is insufficient... well, I'm not sure what I can say to that. But to the latter part... heh, well... I just don't agree at all. Our credibility is not on the line here. (In fact, it was decided upon long ago, for better or worse.) We've tackled some fairly important things before, but this isn't one of them. This is just another attempt to impose some artificial guidelines to limit our scope because Wikipedia limits theirs. -- Ozzel 10:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Another thing... can someone please explain to me the logic of deleting redirects on TC'd articles like this? That does nothing but hinder navigation. Saying that we can't even have a redirect to help people find what they're looking for is absurd, and the only purpose I see it serving is to give the deleter the satisfaction of knowing the article is completely gone (which is wrong, but I fear it is the real intention lately). -- Ozzel 19:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Plus, absence of redirect will just cause people to re-create the article. jSarek 00:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Not for nothing, but isn't that what WP:CRP (WP:CRAP?) is for?--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 03:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
        • No, that's for vandalism and fanon. If somebody is making an article in good faith about something they couldn't (but should have been able to) easily find on the wiki, then that means we have failed in our primary purpose of being a comprehensive Star Wars encyclopedia. To say that we should try to block such people from adding something valid instead of helping them find it seems a little ridiculous to me. -- Ozzel 03:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
          • I'm with Ozzel on this. Are people so allergic to boy bands that they can't even abide a redirect serving a legitimate purpose? All sorts of things which don't deserve a full article (obscure fansites, persistent fanon, etc.) are kept as redirects to something pertinent. —Silly Dan (talk) 11:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
            • Unlike some people who I share the belief with you that they are voting simply out of disgust for the concept of the band, I simply dislike having the name of the article be under the band if the band itself did not appear in the film, simple as that. I would not be opposed to a redirect after giving this thought. Toprawa and Ralltiir 16:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
              • So I say again: let's rename the article. -- Ozzel 12:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It might be more appropriate to merge/redirect with Scenes cut from Star Wars. --Azizlight 04:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)