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 partial delete. This is going to be kind of ignore all rules close, because the situation is complex. Everyone, including the nominator, agrees that the subject is notable. All experienced editors agree that the article has been built out of a pastiche of copyright violations. Werldwayd tried to build a version of the article that was acceptable, but, upon questioning, agreed that copyright issues remain with his version. I can't see a way to adequately clean this version. I can't see a standard way out of this. So, here's the result. I'm going to delete the article. I will restore the initial one-line plus infobox stub. I'm going to protect the result for two weeks, to give Werldwayd a chance to build the new version he agreed to create. If that is done before the two weeks are up, I'll do a history merge and undo the protection. If someone wants to suggest a better way out, I'm open to suggestions.—Kww(talk) 03:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)))[reply]

Elissa (singer)[edit]

Elissa (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was deleted after discussion only a few weeks ago. The subject is notable, and the article has been recreated, but what has been recreated is, if anything, even worse than the previous version -- a collection of text copied from other sites (some mirroring the deleted article), OR, subjective commentary, and unreliably sourced (at best) gossip. The previous AFD nomination characterized the page as "a good thorough violation of WP:BLP," and this one appears to compound the problem by including similar BLP violations about "rival" performers. Between the pervasive copyright violations and BLP failures, I don't see any good alternatives to wiping this off the public record and starting over, repeating the consensus action taken in January. Something drastic needs to be done; there's not even an acceptable stub here to revert to. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If there is "no an acceptable stub to revert to", create one. Simply nominating for deletion is unhelpful, and you admit yourself that the subject is notable. There are several reliable sources used in this article, instead of just drive by deleting, check the sources one by one and prune the bad ones out (such as the link to a Google search).FunkMonk (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. That wasn't the consensus reached only a few weeks ago, and it will leave the copyright violation and BLP violations publicly accessible. I suspect the article is speediable under G4, but the history appears too messy for me to assert that. Copyright and BLP violations support speedy deletion of articles on notable subjects; I just think this case may be too controversial/convoluted for a speedy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This really is not fair. You are free to remove sections that you don't think should be there but deleting the article is just not acceptable. Tell me what I need to do to prevent deletion? I am really frustrated, as a fan and a Wikipedia editor. Please do not put this article up for deletion and help improve it. If you feel that I should no longer interfere that is fine but please don't delete this article. This artist deserves more credit. Thank you Thamerr (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, specific issues should had been addressed on the talk page, and only if these problems were not solved, the article should had been nominated for deletion. No one has the right to say you should stop "interfering" by editing any article on Wikipedia, unless you are doing it with malicious intent. FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time! I have worked so hard to improve the article, over and over again, complying with the rules carefully yet the admins just feel the need to simply put the article up for deletion just over a few broken links. I am glad I have somebody who agrees with me. Leave Elissa ALONE!!! Thamerr (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You must just be more thorough when finding reliable sources, though. A link to a simple Google search doesn't cut it, for example. Search on well known English language Arabic news sites, or you can even use sources that are solely in Arabic, there are some policies that concern that, I can show them to you. But bottom line is, the sources have to be reliable, and you shouldn't add anything not found in them. FunkMonk (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Can you be specific about the copyright violation argument? That trumps pretty much everything, but I'd need to be persuaded that it's uncorrectable.—Kww(talk) 01:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright problem was raised, and not disputed, at the initial AFD; I haven't checked it out independently, but relied on the determination there. When the article was recreated, it began with a cut-and-paste from the lyricsfreak site by User:MohamedShaer [1]. It was developed, with additional cutting-and-pasting, for several days. After others' activity on the article tapered off, beginning on March 4 User:Thamerr more than tripled the size of the article with text that was mainly cut-and-pasted from the elissalovers.net site. On March 8, Thamerr cut-and-pasted even more text from the elissalovers site, including some fairly overt BLP violations, particularly in the "Rivalries" section. After I removed sections with RS and BLP issues, Thamerr edit warred to restore them; I looked into the sourcing further, reviewed the initial AFD, and came to the conclusion that this version was basically a recreation of the version deleted by consensus, though I couldn't verify that it qualified for speedy deletion and therefore brought the matter here. I'm not certain that the initial claims of copyright violation, standing alone, were themselves sufficient to justify deletion -- at least one of the supposed "sources"/"references", the elissalovers bio page, is a Wikipedia mirror -- but the combination of cut-and-pasted text and the major sourcing problems generated the initial consensus to delete the article. I see only two options, both of which would support deletion of the current article:

• The initisl deletion was correct. Then this version, even if not sufficiently identical on its face to justify speedy deletion, is flawed in the same way, to the same or greater degree, and should be deleted; even the initial recreated version was a copyvio.
• The initial deletion was excessive. Then the deleted version should be restored and the problem text stripped from it (which will clearly require extensive deletions, or reversion to a greatly different version). The current version cannot be preserved; aside from the copyvio it began with, extensive portions of the text, probably the great bulk of it, came from a Wikipedia mirror of the deleted article. Recreating the text, severed from the legitimate edit history, is a violation of the attribution requirements of the licensing the text was originally created under. (I'm hardly an expert on the licensing, but I recall a DelRev discussion which concluded that, even in userspace, recreating the text of a deleted article without preserving the history was a licensing violation.)

In short, this is an utter mess, and the content problems so severe there's no problem-free text to salvage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's no reason for deletion. Cut it down to a stub, or rewrite it, anything else is just laziness. FunkMonk (talk) 06:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Laziness" comments are unwarranted. I'll look it over. Even if the article itself stays, it sounds like some history excision may be warranted.—Kww(talk) 14:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Elissa is undoubtedly a very significant artist indeed, a majour one if I may add. The problem with the article may be in too much detail of individual albums on the main page. In this case, "less is more" as they say... Most album information should be transferred to the related album pages. Only the essential non-album material should be kept in the main page and only main significant changes of albums need be reflected on main page. All other details can be accessed through the already existing wikified discography section. Another section "Criticism and controversy" reads like a gossip magazine and has no place in Wikipedia. A small mention of rivalry is ok, but the contents of this section should be trimmed extensively as most of it is irrelevant. With these two amendments, the article can stay and must stay actually. I envision an article just one third the size of the present one suffices. As a compromise, I suggest this alternative Elissa page Elisa Proposed article werldwayd (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal looks nice, but really needs more reliable sources still. FunkMonk (talk) 12:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am volunteering to write an article from scratch with just the basics and independent sources in about a week werldwayd (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.