Deletion of relevant covers of Caravan (1936 song)
edit
The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.
- Editors involved in this dispute
- Bubbatex (talk · contribs) – filing party
- Bubbatex (talk · contribs)
- Binksternet (talk · contribs)
- Articles affected by this dispute
- Caravan (1936 song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted
What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.
- Primary issues (added by the filing party)
- Why are the Harry James covers of Caravan being repeatedly deleted? Despite a lengthy discussion on the Caravan talk page, the two editors are unable to reach an agreement of whether the WP:SONGCOVER criteria have been met. The latest deletion has also removed the cover by Santo & Johnny. Please provide resolution of which of the four covers should remain on the page (Santo & Johnny, Duane Eddy, Harry James, and John Wasson).
- Additional issues (added by other parties)
- Additional issue 1
- Additional issue 2
If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.
- Agree. Bubbatex (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree Binksternet (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems too small for MedCom. Wikipedia:Third opinion is probably the best option. Binksternet (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.
- Reject. I'm going to reject this case under the discretion given to the Chairperson under prerequisite to mediation #9 that "the Committee has the discretion to refuse or refer back to other dispute resolution venues (e.g. dispute resolution noticeboard, third opinion, request for comment, or additional talk page discussion) a dispute which would benefit from additional work at lower levels of the dispute resolution process." For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]
