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. Unlike the other Lana Del Rey AfD I just closed, in this case, there does appear to be a consensus that this subject is not notable. While the criteria of standalone lists are different than those for articles, there still must be some evidence that the subject (here, "unreleased Lana Del Rey songs") is notable. No one has demonstrated that it is. Furthermore, it appears that many of the items on the list cannot even be verified (as a side note: linking to unofficial YouTube content is a form of copyright violation, and must always be removed immediately; the same would apply for any other uploading of the singer's material without her/her recording company's explicit approval). If there are any individual items on here that have been discussed in independent sources, information about those and only those could be added to some other page (assuming the information met WP:DUE). For clarification, the policies that apply here are WP:N (specificallly WP:LISTN), and various parts of WP:NOT. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of unreleased Lana Del Rey songs[edit]

List of unreleased Lana Del Rey songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

The previous AFD on this list closed as no consensus. So I am revisiting this, as from the start I tried to get rid of this content, and only created the page to satisfy another user.

This list of every single song ever recorded or performed by Elizabeth Grant (currently performing under the name "Lana Del Rey") under her various stage names is massive and unwieldy. While it is meticulously sourced, almost none of the sources are considered reliable. Several dozen, in fact, are to postings of "leaked" demo tapes to websites such as YouTube, Vimeo, or Soundcloud, and I've seen several references that go to several Lana Del Rey fansites. The other major selection of references are to search results on the ASCAP database, which likely features every song ever written or recorded by members of ASCAP. These search results are no longer valid, as a log in is required, and the site simply shows that the songs exist in some form to be used by ASCAP members.

The previous AFD brought up that similar pages by other artists have also been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unreleased songs by Nicole Scherzinger and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unreleased Rihanna songs due to similar poor sourcing issues. While List of unreleased Britney Spears songs and List of unreleased Madonna songs, I do not think that the coverage exhibited on this page satisfies keeping the content in any form, even if it is merged to a list created at the time of the previous discussion (which I have also listed for deletion). The other pages feature reliable sources beyond bootleg copies and a summary of the ASCAP database. —Ryulong (琉竜) 09:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I find it extremely ridiculous that you're nominating this after an obvious extensive previous nomination that happened within a month ago (not to mention you had one comment on and didn't respond to anything else). The page is far too long and detailed to be included on List of Lana Del Rey songs. If these lists are unacceptable then please give me a valid excuse as to why List of unreleased Britney Spears songs was a previous featured article. Lana Del Rey consists of multiple previous personas where she has hundreds of songs. Neither artist you mentioned have done anything like this. The ASCAP references WERE valid but obviously they EXPIRE and you have to replace them. It's simple as that. And they are 100% reliable. Also, if you go to my talk page you did not create this page to satisfy another user (me). --MrIndustry (talk) 09:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The previous nomination closed as "no consensus", which means that no proper conclusion came about and the status quo was kept on a technicality. That means I can properly open up a new AFD with better arguments so an actual conclusion can be met, regardless of the level of involvement I had in its previous form. And what I said to you in May has no bearing on my actual opinions on the page's content, which are free to change.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You also stated above that the two articles have reliable sources unlike List of unreleased Lana Del Rey songs, which is actually incorrect. I'm also not sure if we're looking at the same Britney article because it's sources are BMI/ASCAP and a few indie music blogs which is exactly the same as Unreleased Lana Del Rey songs. As you stated ASCAP lists what exists, this proves my point of ASCAP being a reliable source. These are songs that EXIST. Leaked and UNLEAKED. You guys keep claiming no policy, no policy, but there is no policy so we'll keep arguing the same exact thing as before. The article is far too detailed and is more important than List of unreleased Britney Spears songs, which is a featured article. Britney has no past personas and her unreleased songs are not notable, Lana's are, it made her who she is.--MrIndustry (talk) 09:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  List of unreleased Britney Spears songs is not a featured article. It is a featured list. And just because something exists, does not mean we need to cover it. Your arguments are still not supported by any policy or guideline of the English Wikipedia. This will be my last comment directed towards anyone in the debate, as I have a bad habit of turning things into massive threads of arguments that lead no where. (Several of MrIndustry's comments are to things I decided to remove in this edit.)—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  My mistake on the featured list. The article is a highly active article. This would be a different situation if no one used this and no one updated it. Why remove something that's obviously active and helpful? That's stupid.--MrIndustry (talk) 09:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The reason the last AfD was No consensus was because there was a three-way split between keep, delete and merge. I won't make that mistake again. "Unreleased" is rarely notable, irrespective of the name of the artist/s and this is no exception. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Seems obvious enough. Could use some better sources, in some cases, but otherwise notable enough. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 07:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Definitely keep. This article is highly notable. I don't think I know another artist who has had this many personas and unreleased songs as Del Rey does. I don't think a list of unreleased songs is notable for every artist but it definitely is for Del Rey. It is very active and is constantly being updated and used. teammathi 14:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC+7)

  An article cannot be "notable". The subject of an article is notable, but lists are held to different criteria. And as I said before, it does not matter how many "personas" this individual has. The nature of Ms. Grant's performance is irrelevant when it comes to Wikipedia's content policies. Same thing goes or the level of activity a page receives. Arguments for retention should be based on policy, which seems to be lacking, again.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Lana Del Rey still performs some of these songs at concerts. These songs are who she is and what made her. No other mainstream artist has this many unreleased songs. --MrIndustry (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You are right, Ryulong. I don't have any policies to back this up since this is an exception. As I have said, I don't think a List of unreleased songs is needed for any other artist but it definitely is for Del Rey. teammathi 8:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC+7)

  If some of the songs are performed at concerts, then that information can be kept in some form on Wikipedia. However, there is no reason anyone should be exempt from the rules. If reliable sources support the notability of these several dozen songs, then we have a reason to cover them. However, this is not the case when 100 sources point to social media and fan blogs.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongest possible delete— per previous nomination, the items on the list aren't notable. The arguments for keeping the article are ridiculously feeble. Till 09:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Did the nominator may no mind to "No prejudice toward a future merge discussion"? That is what should be done here. A second deletion nomination is pointless. A deletion nomination is created with the objective of all the content in the article to be deleted. Statυs (talk) 12:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I see the nominator also nominated List of Lana Del Rey songs for deletion, what this page should be merged with, claiming no other types of list exist. Statυs (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  This whole nomination is ridiculous.--MrIndustry (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It does not matter what the closing admin said after it was closed as "no consensus". This discussion is working to seek a consensus on whether or not this article should be kept in any form. Merging is out of the question due to the poor sources on this page, and the other page which I've listed for deletion is also entirely unnecessary.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The sources are not poor and eliminating a merge option because you don't agree with it is ridiculous. Although I don't agree with merging because it's too independent of a section. I'm going to add a few more sources right now.--MrIndustry (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  "No consensus" is "no consensus". This discussion will result in a consensus.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Concerns I have with this list: (1) It relies quite heavily on poor/unreliable sources, with little actual coverage on the topic. Compare the references to those in the aforementioned List of unreleased Britney Spears songs. (2) The Lana Del Ray A.K.A. Lizzy Grant album was released, so even though it was pulled after two months, its songs would not seem to qualify for this list.  Gongshow ^Talk 16:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The reason it's on the list is because it was pulled from its entirety. You can't just not download it from Amazon anymore, its entire page was deleted as if it never existed. But I can see your point where it shouldn't be included on the list. The sources are the same as List of unreleased Britney Spears songs, so I'm confused. Can you please elaborate? --MrIndustry (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact that the album is no longer available on Amazon just means it's now more difficult to purchase. Albums can't really go from "never released" to "released" and then back to "never released". As for the sources, both Lana's and Britney's articles use lots of BMI and ASCAP refs. What I meant is that besides those, Britney's article - with few exceptions - mostly uses reliable sources such as MTV, USA Today, Billboard, New York magazine, People, Entertainment Weekly, and The Observer. Lana's article - with some exceptions - mostly uses sources like social networking sites (YouTube, Vimeo, MySpace, Tumblr, SoundCloud, last.fm, ReverbNation), fansites (lanadelreyonline.com, lanadelreyweb.com), and non-notable blogs (afistfulofculture.com, besteveralbums.com, hardcandymusic.com, WackyMusicCrazy.org, josepvinaixa.com, shyampareek.in, etc).  Gongshow ^Talk 19:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The album actually has been pulled and is no longer available for purchase anywhere. I'm honestly not clear on Wikipedia's terms of reliable sources, but if the link provides the material, it should be considered reliable... because it is the material? I do remember reading that the source is considered reliable if it is independent from the artist. Which would allow non-notable music blogs acceptable.--MrIndustry (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Even if independent of the artist, self-published blogs like the ones listed above are discouraged. WP:BLOGS states: "Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources." For example, media publishers like MTV, Billboard, and The New York Times are considered reliable, but not the blog my friend and I put together.  Gongshow ^Talk 20:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have added more reliable sources such as Entertainment Weekly and MTV.--MrIndustry (talk) 00:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: can the admin who closes this please analyse the discussion based on citing policy and guideline. The last Afd should have resulted in delete as none of the keep !voters linked to either, and this discussion looks like it's heading the same way. Till 02:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Considering we're giving valid reasons why it shouldn't be deleted and proving you guys wrong on countless occasions should deem this nomination a speedy keep and close. You guys claimed no notable sources and I give you MTV and EW and a few others. Britney Spears' unreleased songs are NOT notable whatsoever and Lana's are. Has Britney ever performed an unreleased song? Nope. Time to move on and leave this article alone. And can you please give me one GOOD/VALID EXCUSE as to why we should delete an article that is informative and helpful and ACTIVE and is NOWHERE ELSE ON THE INTERNET?--MrIndustry (talk) 04:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You and teammathi both have been suggesting that the article be kept for reasons that are not at all supported by Wikipedia's policies. An article being "active" really doesn't mean anything. This information being "nowhere else on the internet" also shows that no one in serious discussion has found a need to completely catalogue every single song written or performed by Elizabeth Grant under her various pseudonyms or bands, which means Wikipedia shouldn't likely either. And we didn't claim "no notable sources". We claimed "no reliable sources", as everything (including those Entertainment Weekly and MTV articles) is being sourced back to bootleg copies on YouTube. Those sites don't particularly state those songs are of critical note. They simply point out that recordings exist. Till, Richhoncho, and I are all providing reasons based on our knowledge on Wikipedia's content policies. You are acting as a rabid fan who wants to use this end of Wikipedia as a fansite dedicated to everything Lana Del Rey and are incensed that someone dare try to take down your pet project. Perusing your article edits, I'm finding that almost half of them are in regards to the list in its time on the discography page and in its current incarnation. You need to take a step back and look at things objectively, rather than through the lens of adoration of the subject. I like her music (under Lana Del Rey), but I do not find this massive page at all useful.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't you think you're getting a little personal, Ryulong?
  Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Recordings says : "Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources." I do think that criterion has been met.
  Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Resources says: "To find ownership information on song texts copyrighted in the US, the ASCAP ACE Title Search and BMI Repertoire Search utilities are invaluable." 23 of the songs are registered on ASCAP, 12 songs are registered on BMI.
  Wikipedia:Notability (music)#If the subject is not notable says: "Wikipedia's goal is neither tiny articles that can never be expanded nor articles based primarily on what the subjects say about themselves." The article is constantly being updated. teammathi 10:57, 21 August 2012 (CET)

  It's not personal when I mention the only two editors who have been constantly updating the page and are vehemently opposing its removal from the site. You're ignoring the word "significant". Finding things under ASCAP or BMI does not denote notability, it's only useful for finding ownership. And just because an article is constantly being updated (in this case the discovery of more and more bootleg recordings of unreleased songs) does not mean it's worthy of inclusion. You are picking out phrases on the page to suit your side without acknowledging the full scope of the guideline.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You're completely ignoring the fact that I said I sourced MTV and Entertainment Weekly and a few other reliable sources. Can you shut up with the notable because it obviously is..--MrIndustry (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  They're not making critical commentary. Fine. You found two whole reliable sources to source the existence of only 4 songs out of the 50 or so on the page. The only one that's remotely notable for coverage out of them is Ghetto Baby, which doesn't even have its own article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Two? Hello? Go look again and I had previous reliable sources such as Ryan Seacrest which you ignored. Some are critical, some are not. Either way she's still notable enough to have it written about.--MrIndustry (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Whether or not Elizabeth Grant as Lana Del Rey is notable for coverage has no bearing on whether or not her entire unreleased catalog should be discussed on Wikipedia. And this edit summary shows that you are no longer worth arguing with on this topic.—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Why should any unreleased material list be on Wikipedia then? You're constantly changing why it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. You also claimed someone was condescending in the other Lana AFD when they weren't. You just made a condescending comment towards me. --MrIndustry (talk) 00:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said in the other nomination, merge with List of songs recorded by Lana Del Rey. Statυs (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  If that AFD is kept as keep, I would agree that any content from this article concerning songs that Ms. Grant performs at concerts under the name "Lana Del Rey", which are supported to be performed as "Lana Del Rey" by reliable sources, should probably move there. However, there is no way that the page as it stands should be kept, and I fear that a merge (just turning it into a redirect) will not be sufficient, as it will allow for the re-creation as it still exists in the page history.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This should be kept because this resource is a wealth of knowledge for those interested in Ms. Grant's discography. I think this list only adds value to the entry of Lana Del Rey as it shows her dedication to her songwriting.--DDrdashing (talk) DDRdashing (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  — DDRdashing (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 19:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

• Keep - Notable list. Great sources for the list. I also have to say that I find the bickering above entertaining but totally ridiculous from both sides.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  How are 80 posts on YouTube, Soundcloud, and fansites "great sources"?—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I've solved this problem. Seriously, MrIndustry? You thought that directly linking to an MP3 hosted illegally on Tumblr was a good idea to use as a source? This whole page is garbage. I've only managed to leave links to the reliable source entertainment news sites, ASCAP, BMI, Harry Fox archives, and even then the news sites and BMI links are the only ones that are working.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not the only one sourcing and I'd rather an admin make the decision if we should keep direct links to the piece. The source shows the item exists on YouTube. If they're worried about it, they'll contact YouTube to remove it. I'm not sure why you're so mad at Lana Del Rey.--MrIndustry (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no reason to have an admin make a decision. YouTube and other social networking sites are not reliable sources, unless it is an official account owned by the subject. There is no reason for you to have reverted my removal of all those invalid sources and adding ((dead link)) to every dead link. And I am not mad at Lana Del Rey. I have previously said somewhere (in this debate or the other one) that I enjoy her music. It's just that this article is so incredibly poorly constructed that it should not be on Wikipedia.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Seriously user Ryulong your very confronting editing style is not appreciated from me. You need to relax and stop attacking people who simply do not agree with your perception of what is and what is not notable. And the fact that you started a edit-war on this article isnt exactly something I appreciate either to be perfectly honest. You need to relax. Just being real.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The references are not acceptable and I'm almost certain that they cannot be used per WP:BLP. More than half of the article is sourced to recordings posted on YouTube, Soundcloud, Vimeo, fan blogs on Tumblr, and other fansites. Those should not be used on any Wikipedia article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Both of you need to stop edit-warring now. It is starting to look ridiculous with both of you throwing accusations and claims against each other. Stop now before it gets completely out of hand. And let the AfDs run its courses. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I self reverted, but went back to remove links to blogs, add dead link templates to dead links, and then used reflinks to fill in the references properly (several URLs were put right up against the title of the page which made the links broken, and it also showed other deadlinks). There are still 50 external links on this article that should not be there.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Still going at it I see. OK that is you decision.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with extreme prejudice - A large number of the refs are deal/rotten links, the youtube ones are utterly useless, since Youtube is not considered a reliable source, and with that many unusable links, the article violates BLP. This needs to either go, now, and quickly, or be userfied back to the contributors page so that they can repair it and fix the utterly devastating fall-apart that is the references section. Fish^Barking? 23:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, but I have to disagree with you here. Clearly a case of "needs improvements and not deletion". So not a reason for deletion if the article subject is notable. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no improvement to make because the article is in no way salvagable. We can't use a fan's illegal upload as a reliable source, which is all there appears to be.—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, BubbaQ, but I'm back Ryulong on this one. We cannot use material from Youtube, because it is user generated content, and most of the music videos uploaded are in direct violation of copyright - therefore, all the Youtube sources need to be removed from the article immediately, which reduces the references.

  Then we have the dead links, which are broken and go absolutely nowhere - so now we're down to a point that not everything in the article is referenced - which violates BLP - anything included in a BLP must be properly sourced and referenced, or it can be challenged and removed.

  So at this point, what we have is an article with a rapidly decreasing amount of references, which violates a strict site policy, it's in a condition which in medical terms I'd describe as "Critical". If it had a Do Not Resuscitate order on it, I'd obey it :P Fish^Barking? 23:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  There was still 50+ references when the unreliable ones were removed. Therefore I believe this classifies it as notable.--MrIndustry (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Those 50 are nearly all dead links to the ASCAP and Harry Fox websites.—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the main argument against this article seems to be that the subject isn't notable enough, or there aren't enough reliable sources. This is a fair argument but it seems to be one that is going nowhere. I'd say the notability of Lana Del Rey's unreleased discography is unclear, but that doesn't warrant deletion. ("For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort"). I think at this point deleting the article which is so detailed would be a waste, so at least merging the content here with something else, (I saw someone mention a list of Del Rey's songs) would really be the last resort. I genuinely feel deleting the article would remove good information because no one can be bothered to find the right sources. Why not preserve the article and fix the problem? 94.169.100.224 (talk) 12:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is that the sourcing is so poor that there is nothing to preserve. It's a list of any song that can be tenuously linked to having been performed or written at some time by Elizabeth Grant a.k.a. Lana Del Rey. They are not even all songs written or performed under the Lana Del Rey moniker. The level of detail is unimportant. You can create a massively detailed page about anything on Wikipedia, but that does not mean we need to cover it. Half of the article is sourced to YouTube or similar sites and the other half after that is sourced to a bunch of rotten links. This is not acceptable by any chance, and much of it appears to be based on assumptions (I've never seen mention of a rerelease of her major debut that includes some of the songs on the list).—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Also this IP's first ever edit was to the article in question, and now it suddenly returns after no edits in a month to this page, which is somewhat telling.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  This is my last comment to your ridiculous claims, but assumption means they're assumptions. If a song has leaked, it's not an assumption. It has LEAKED. It's a FACT. The Born to Die: Paradise Edition has a few assumptions, but the songs still EXIST. Some of the sources for Paradise Edition include song titles. Now can we stop sounding like broken records and only respond when there's something NEW to talk about?--MrIndustry (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I had promised myself to stay quiet, but copyright is quite a serious issue at WP. Mr. Industry, please be good enough to read WP:SONG#Lyrics and music videos. I'm out of here again. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You don't get my point. You can remove the YouTube sources, but the songs still exist so saying a list is made up of assumptions is ridiculous. The songs have been leaked, they're fact, not assumptions. --MrIndustry (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, but I do get it. I asked you to read a guideline without any comment whatsoever about notability, assumptions or anything else. I did not try to make any other point. I didn't even suggest that you would have to act on what you read. Did you bother to read the guideline? --Richhoncho (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I already spoke to an admin about it yesterday. I never spoke about keeping the YouTube links on there after that. I simply corrected his use of the word assumption.--MrIndustry (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I've removed the offending sources, again, in regards to WP:LINKVIO, which is a policy and not a guideline.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:31, 26 August 2012 (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.