Talk:The Best Smooth Jazz... Ever! vol. 4
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Kvng in topic Problems with this article
 | This page was proposed for deletion by Vmavanti (talk · contribs) on 27 June 2019 with the comment: Not notable It was contested by Kvng (talk · contribs) on 2019-07-02 with the comment: Series is, at least, potentially notable. Consider moving all coverage to The Best... Ever! as preferred WP:ATD. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Problems with this article
editI tried to get this article deleted. But as is often the case, someone had a religious objection to deletion. Aside from having no sources and almost no content, this article has an album calling people jazz musicians when they are not. Starting with disc one, the following are not jazz musicians, not even "smooth jazz" musicians (a term that has ceased to have clear meaning): Dean Martin (traditional pop); Chet Baker (jazz), Perry Como (traditional pop), Basia (pop), Peter White (pop), Amos Lee (pop or folk), Sinead O'Connor (pop); Disc two: Doris Day (traditional pop), Norah Jones (pop or folk), Luther Vandross (soul or R&B), Glady's Knight and the Pips (soul or R&B).
–Vmavanti (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- It was a policy objection, not a religious one. Feel free to make WP:BOLD improvements to the article. That's what we're here for. ~Kvng (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- I've been making BOLD edits EVERY DAY for about four years. It is OTHERS who have been guilty of timidity, laziness, selfishness, and throwing arbitrary obstacles in my way in the name of the religion of anti-deletion. Yes, it is a religion when people either can't or won't engage in a subject rationally on Talk pages and when they can't give sensible reasons for every edit. It is an act of faith to believe some fairy godmother or Santa Claus or Good Samaritan is going to come along and improve articles that haven't been touched in ten years. The jazz Project is full of these articles. There are those who approach Wikipedia like football. Pick and team and you are therefore liberated from the hard work of thinking. Just choose sides. Discussions turn into Us v. Them debates, demanding that I choose either the Deletionist side or the Anti-Deltionist side. I won't do it. I decide each matter on its merits, one at a time. I would like to thank the person who was bold enough and delete this half-assed "article".
–Vmavanti (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)- Deletion is not WP:BOLD. Nor are talk page screeds. ~Kvng (talk) 13:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- I've been making BOLD edits EVERY DAY for about four years. It is OTHERS who have been guilty of timidity, laziness, selfishness, and throwing arbitrary obstacles in my way in the name of the religion of anti-deletion. Yes, it is a religion when people either can't or won't engage in a subject rationally on Talk pages and when they can't give sensible reasons for every edit. It is an act of faith to believe some fairy godmother or Santa Claus or Good Samaritan is going to come along and improve articles that haven't been touched in ten years. The jazz Project is full of these articles. There are those who approach Wikipedia like football. Pick and team and you are therefore liberated from the hard work of thinking. Just choose sides. Discussions turn into Us v. Them debates, demanding that I choose either the Deletionist side or the Anti-Deltionist side. I won't do it. I decide each matter on its merits, one at a time. I would like to thank the person who was bold enough and delete this half-assed "article".