Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papoose (2nd nomination)


 * 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 of the debate was Keep after rewrite.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 04:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Papoose
Non-notable article, probable vanity. Google search turns up some related links but nothing displaying any modicum of notablity. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO standards. Has been deleted thrice now and been through afd once already May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 08:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Nomination withdrawn after rewrite.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)  04:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * A listing on allmusic.com still doesn't qualify for listing on the basis of WP:Music or WP:Bio requirements if you are unfamiliar with them please read -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 08:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Also this page has been repeatedly deleted and has been through AFD'd once before per nominator -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 08:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to comment here that this was a good faith attempt at an article. The user who created this page was not doing so for vanity, and genuinely believed that Papoose was suitably notable for his own article.  It was written by a newbie, and hence is written in a newbie way.  The author didn't cite the references very well, and it is poorly written.  But please remember Wikipedia's policy of "Don't bite the newbies" and also to WP:AGF assume good faith.  I have seen the comments made by Susan Larson about this, including refusing to allow the author to make their voice heard, which is really a bit unfair.  An author is permitted to have a vote.  The sock puppet issue comes in if they try to make 2 votes.  Whilst I don't know what happened in the original article nomination, I just think that we should be working more towards helping newbies rather than automatically suspecting them of evil deeds.  We were all newbies once upon a time.  Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 08:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The claims of the edits being a good faith do not hold true in the face of the facts that the creator removed various db and merge tags several times from the article without any reason:    even after being told not to do so on his talk page. Therefore, I cannot believe that the edits were in good faith.--May the Force be with you!  Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)  09:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Also note: First nomination here: Articles_for_deletion/Papoose. It was speedy deleted as an attack page.  Hence this second version of the article, which is clearly not an attack page, does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, as it is not the same article. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 08:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Nobody has nominated this article for speedy deletion now so your so your concerns are unrequired.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)  08:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete, See above. See also Talk:Papoose -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 08:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Dont delete it ! why would you do that ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gravediggah (talk • contribs) Gravediggah is the author of this article
 * Keep - he has an allmusic.com entry. His "notable song", "Alphabetical Slaughter" has hundreds of google hits: .  He's been talked about a fair bit too, including on message boards, hip hop communities , and has almost 50 singles released .  He has also won Justo's Award for Mixtape Artist of the Year in 2004, hence meeting another requirement of WP:MUSIC, as featured on MTV .  He meets the notability requirements quite comfortably. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 08:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as NN, and re-created deleted content (?) The JPS 10:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually no. The original version was an attack page, this is not.  So it is not re-created deleted content, and speedy delete does not apply.  14:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've excised all the stuff about the rapper, and replaced it with the actual definition of a 'papoose'.  Put a dab on papoose, linking to Papoose (rapper), which is where the stuff on the rapper should live. Proto t c 14:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That seems like a good idea.  However, from memory there was more in the Papoose article than in the Papoose (rapper) article.  Would you mind merging some bits in to the rapper one?  Or maybe working on on more stuff? Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 14:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I couldn't see much that wasn't just opinion stuff, which shouldn't have been there in the first place. However, the history has everything in it if you want to recheck this. Proto t c 16:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep the new, rewritten article, which should be expanded with an extended discussion of the folklore (?) that has Native American women bundling their infants and carrying them on their backs. It is no longer the same article.  Smerdis of Tlön 15:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - OK it exists, Proto, and well done for retrieving it, but it's still a dicdef. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strange, I see etymology, and two differing objects the term refers to (a small Native American child, and the a form of bag or holdall). There is most definitely sufficient there for a stub on a notable topic, with a very good chance of expansion. You should not vote to delete an article because it's a dictionary definition at the moment.  Instead, perhaps you could consider tagging it for expansion.  It should only be suggested for deletion if there is no possibility of expanding it beyond the dictionary definition.  Here you could have the history of the papoose bag, manufacture techniques, manufacturers, market conditions, periods it was popular in fashion, why the bag is called a 'papoose', and so on, and so forth. Proto t c 15:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, you persuaded me. Keep it is. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 18:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong keep as rewritten. Any discussion about the rapper should go to Articles for deletion/Papoose (rapper). &mdash; J I P  | Talk 16:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * We already had discussion, and were pretty close to a consensus for keeping it. Can we move the comments over to that AFD or is that not allowed? Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 16:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well done, Proto. I have expanded the article further as has someone else. It is more than just a dictdef now. Capitalistroadster 18:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 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.