Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rites of Spring


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 05:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Rites of Spring

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Per WP:DAB, basically. Should be non-controversial but a particular editor has been warring over this for some time. The disambiguation is between The Rite of Spring, a ballet, and Rites of Spring, a band. Since there are only 2 similarly-titled articles in question, hatnote dabs at the top of each suffice and a separate disambiguation page is unnecessary. See the discussions at Talk:Rites of Spring (band) and Talk:Rites of Spring–the creator of the dab page took this as consensus, moving the band page to "Rites of Spring (band)" and creating a disambiguation page, though there was no clear consensus. Per WP:DAB and common sense, each article should be at its correct title ("The Rite of Spring" and "Rites of Spring", respectively) sinc the the titles are not identical, and a hatnote dab on each suffices for disambiguation. I tried to speedy the dab page but the creator contested it. Should the dab page be deleted I will move the band page back to "Rites of Spring" and fix the hatnotes accordingly. IllaZilla (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the Stravinksy and hatnote the band. Eusebeus (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it shoud redirect to the ballet. Each should be at their proper titles, with the ballet at "The Rite of Spring" and the band at "Rites of Spring", with no disambiguation in either title, and there should be hatnotes on each directing to the other article. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I think the solution proposed by IllaZilla is the best way to deal with this. A disambiguation page is not needed since the articles have two separate titles.  Amazinglarry (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per IllaZilla's argument and move Rites of Spring (band) to Rites of Spring with a hat note on both The Rite of Spring and Rites of Spring. Dgf32 (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Per IllaZilla. No objection to this being done speedily... Chubbles (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per DAB. Bearian (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and create appropriately named pages with hats per Zilla... -JodyBtalk 22:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete disambiguation page for two articles makes very little sense, especially when there's no actual name conflict. Orpheus (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Peer IllaZilla. Zazaban (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the more notable The Rite of Spring. This is not just my problem, several editors have expressed objections over it. The Rite of Spring is far and away more notable than the obsolete and defunct punk band from DC which obviously took its name from the ballet. To say that it should occupy the namespace at Rites of Spring is pretty ridiculous. All internal links to the band at Rites of Spring have been updated to point to Rites of Spring (band), so the way the page is set up now is fine. Changing this doesn't make any sense. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and this was not a contested prod, but an attempt by the filing user to speedy delete the page using without any discussion. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it was. I prodded the disambiguation article for speedy deletion so I could move the band article back to that title. You contested the prod by removing the speedy template. I did not participate in the talk page discussions until after I had tagged the page for speedy. In fact I was not even aware of the discussions until after I placed the prod tag. You advised me that AfD was the proper course, so here we are (though I was planning on taking that step if the prod failed anyway). For the record, I became aware of the issue because it appeared here and I am involved in that project. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It should not occupy the namespace that is its proper name, even though there is no other article with that same exact title? Saying that the ballet is "far and away more notable" is your opinion, and from the perspective of Wikipedia is irrelevant. Both topics have the potential to become featured articles, and we do not base disambiguations and organizational moves on which topics some editors think are more notable. Having looked over the various talk page discussions I do not see the "several other editors" who you claim "have expressed objections over it". There have only been a handful of editors involved in the discussions, and if anything there are just as many who believe the band article should stay at "Rites of Spring" as there are who think that page should be a disambigution. What I do see in looking at the history of The Rite of Spring is you repeatedly removing the hatnote dab, and constantly being reverted by other editors because removing the hatnote makes no sense in any case (as it would have to remain whether Rites of Spring was a disambiguation page or an article about the band). As for the internal links, most of them were changed by you the last time you unilaterally moved the article (which was later undone due to the disambiguation being unnecessary). Anyway, internal links are easily fixed as there are only a couple dozen articles that link to the band page. In fact, I volunteer to fix them. I cannot fathom why, for some reason, you seem so vehemently opposed to the idea that someone looking for the ballet The Rite of Spring might somehow end up at an article about the band Rites of Spring instead and have to follow a helpful link to get to the correct article. They would have to follow a link anyway even if Rites of Spring remained a dab page, but you seem particularly opposed to the idea that they might even see the article about the band. Why? --IllaZilla (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Because most people are not looking for the band. The band hardly meets the notability requirement of WP:BAND. For the ease of most Wikipedia users who do not know that the proper name of the ballet is "The Rite of Spring", it makes more sense to have that page serve as a disambiguation. Google results and third party coverage support my assertion that the ballet is more notable. Oh, and the fact the band formed 70 years after the ballet was debuted and literally took its name from the ballet. The hatnote was removed by me, then replaced, then removed by W.M.Connolley, then replaced, then I removed it again because of Connolley's reasoning. Despite your most earnest assertions to the contrary, I am not alone in believing the page serves the project best in its current form. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you been listening? That band has had a huge influence on modern music. I don't like to assume bad faith, but I have the feeling that this is stemming from the idea that ballet is inherently 'superior' to punk and the very idea that the article exists is seen as an affront to good taste. But that's just my opinion. Zazaban (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the article on the band. In fact, if you want to redirect "Rite of Spring" to the dab page, go for it. It just shouldn't occupy namespace when it is more likely people are looking for the ballet (which, I'm going to point out, has recieved a great deal more coverage than the band, though I don't dispute it's importance to the punk movement). Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you don't dispute that band's importance, how does it 'hardly meet the notability requirements of WP:BAND'? Zazaban (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The purpose of disambiguation is served by having hatnotes on both articles, which solves the "ease of most Wikipedia users" issue. If people arrive at the band article when they were looking for the ballet, the hatnote directs them to it. Conversely, if people arrive at the ballet article when they were looking for the band, the hatnote directs them to it. Problem solved. Having a disambiguation page for only 2 articles is entirely unnecessary and makes no sense. We only need one when there are several articles with the same or similar titles, not just 2. You are treading the edge of WP:POINT here. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, and you tried to subvert discussion by having the page speedy deleted so please don't accuse me of violating Wikipedia protocol. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There was discussion, but it was before you came along. Also, this isn't a speedy, this is well, a discussion. Zazaban (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See my above comment. I was not involved in the discussion until after I prodded the article, discounting my comment here which I made last month...the article was not on my watchlist after that, so I had not seen the more recent discussions. I became aware of the dab page after the page move appeared in a bot log for WP:PUNK, and prodded it before checking the talk pages. Rest assured I was not trying to subvert anything. How could I have been, having not even read the recent discussions? --IllaZilla (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You did not try to prod the article. You tried to have it speedy deleted. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I have been under the impression that "prod" was short for "prodded for speedy deletion" (as I have seen it used in that context many times). I was unaware that there is a separate prod template, and that "prod" refers specifically to it. I will use use the correct terms in the future. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there any chance that this discussion can be continued (or, ideally, moved en-bloc) to the relevant talk page? Orpheus (talk) 02:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh really Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Can we please get back on topic? This is a debate on whether or not this article should remain as is, not IllaZilla's intent. Zazaban (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Zazaban, let's stay on topic. For what it's worth, I don't remember what I was doing when I prodded the OC ska article last year. I didn't have much experience with deletion proposals at the time and probably just copied the template directly from some other article. That's not really pertinent to this discussion, though, so let's let it go. I've used the term "prod" in reference to speedy deletion templates many times, and didn't realize I was using incorrect terminology. I've apologized for that, so let's move on. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete and move both articles to their proper (similar but technically unambiguous) name, as per IllaZilla. Dab notes are fully sufficient for disambiguation here.  --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and move the band's article here. Hatnote the two remaining articles. --Michig (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2008 (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.