Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of unreleased Britney Spears songs/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was removed by NapHit 09:44, 5 January 2013 [1].

List of unreleased Britney Spears songs[edit]

List of unreleased Britney Spears songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Notified: WikiProject Discographies

I am nominating this for featured list removal because the article fails the stability criteria; it has gone through one deletion discussion and is currently at WP:DRV. The discussion at Afd raised numerous concerns about the notability of this topic. Also, 16 out of the list's 90 sources are dead, meaning that 18% of the article is unverifiable. Till 00:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist. A further underlying and important issue is that several of the reference links fail WP:LINKVIO - something that should have been addressed before being considered as a featured article. What's the point in WP having policies with legal implications if we are going to ignore the policy? --Richhoncho (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep listed – the discussion at afd/cfd raised numerous irrelevant red-herrings about the notability of each item but no substantive objections. 18% of the article may be unverified but unverifiable is not a valid deduction. A better approach would be to ask for valid verifications of the dead sources, with removal if no source is provided after a reasonable time. Oculi (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are you talking about? Verifiability is policy. Per WP:FLCR, Featured lists must meet "the requirements for all Wikipedia content (particularly naming conventions, neutrality, no original research, verifiability, citations, reliable sources, living persons, non-free content and what Wikipedia is not)". 'Asking for valid verifications of the dead sources' is unnacceptable, and besides: my attempts to retrieve archives of these dead links failed. Till 23:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why is it unacceptable to request that a dead link be replaced with a valid link, failing which in say 4 weeks the unsourced item will be removed? Is {{fact}} unacceptable? Oculi (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • In any case only 2 (numbers 3 and 14) of the 90 are labelled 'dead link' so what is the source of your 18%? Moreover 3 is one of 3 cites for the same fact, and 14 is a source for 'Audile Productions' which is incidental rather than crucial in the article. So I make it around 0%. Oculi (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • See this which shows that sources 3, 14, 20, 21, 31, 36, 41, 48, 51, 54, 58, 60, 63, 65, 69, 89 are all dead. This adds up to 16, and 16 / 90 x 100 = 18 therefore 18% of the article fails WP:V. Till 00:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article does not fail stability: "It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process." The only issue with the article is dead links, which I will fix later. Statυs (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. And the Linkvio as well? --Richhoncho (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And, what? If you're gonna talk to somebody, actually say something productive. Statυs (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is a very valid comment and very important to be noted. There are linkvio items used - if I remove them (as I and every other editor is supposed to do) I will be in the wrong according those who support keeping the article. Therefore I feel it is correct for me to point out that some of the links should be removed according to WP policy. It is the least that any WP editor can expect. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't exactly understand in which way do you cite LINKVIO. Can you please elaborate which sites that are used as sources are violating the copyright of such works? — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am presently going through the list. Will post on talkpage when I have finished. But any site that links to a recording or copies substantially the lyrics will be copyvio and should be removed. That is an imperative and we should all be familiar with the policy. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I was afraid that you were talking about BMI or ASCAP. I'd appreciate of you list the sources which are in violation so that they can be replaced. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, however a listing at at ASCAP/BMI/US Copyright Office etc does not confirm the existence of a recording, whether released or otherwise. I have often used them as a source to find writers i.e. match title and artist and so the songwriters will be correct, but very unreliable to prove the existence of a recording because that's not what a PRO is for. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, and to state that this article contains material about recordings (by linking to these songwriting websites) is a violation of WP:SYNTH. Till 00:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Richhoncho's point is valid, but yours, Till, isn't. Links to ASCAP/BMI/etc are completely acceptable and not a violation of any guideline or policy. The main issue could be about the scope of the list. As far as I know, this list comprises all songs that were written for Britney Spears, whether she recorded them or not. — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But Hahc21 you have now opened a completely new can of worms. If the songs have not been been proven to have been recorded then can they be "unreleased?" FWIW, I am in favour of a List of songs recorded by Britney Spears or even a List of songs written by Britney Spears it's this goddam awful word "unreleased" which I can't abide. --Richhoncho (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I don't know :S I am no fan of Britney Spears and have no personal feelings about this article... So I am not in favour or in favour of any list about her ;) — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hahc, you either: a) didn't read what I wrote, or b) misunderstood what I wrote. To say that these unreleased songs (that link to the songwriting websites) were recorded by Britney Spears is a violation of WP:SYNTH. There is no proof that these songs were in fact recorded. Till 01:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, then I misunderstood what you wrote and I agree with you. I think that this list contains songs that were written by/for her (but maybe that's just my mind going beyond what's actually written). If we say that all of them were recorded, we would be in violation of SYNTH as you say, which is correct. Also, and for obvious reasons, we can't find a source stating those songs were recorded [unless we go to YouTube, but that's not reliable]. — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My god Richhoncho, get out of AfD zone because this isn't what this is... Statυs (talk) 01:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to save this as a Featured Article, then you need to ensure that WP policies and guidelines are met. That has nothing to do with AfD, and everything to do with the proposed delisting. Your best course of action is to deal with the problems in the list, rather than being offensive to those that disagree with you at present. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note. This is a featured list, not a featured article. Thus, criteria changes. — ΛΧΣ21™ 14:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quite, typo late in the evening. But the principles of verifiability, references, no original research, no synthesis etc still apply - even if we disagree where the actual lines in the sand appear. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sorry but AFD and DRV are not considered inside the stability criteria. Also, new references can be found. I am afraid that this FLRC was opened with the intentions of removing the broze start that prevented the article from being deleted. — ΛΧΣ21™ 23:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still fails WP:V and notability is still in question. Till 00:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it doesn't in my opinion. For an article to fail WP:V, it must have no sources, online or offline, available anywhere. If reliable sources exist, and I am pretty sure they are, then WP:V is met. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please show me where it states that "for an article to fail WP:V, it must have no sources, online or offline, available anywhere". The sources in question are dead, therefore inaccessible, therefore readers cannot verify that the material is supported by such sources, therefore it fails WP:Verifiability. Till 00:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • The issue is not that the sources are dead. The issue is how to replace them. If you can replace those dead links with other ones, then it still meets WP:V. That policy is not restricted to the sources on the articles, but to all possible sources in the world. If an article has no sources, or its sources are dead, but you can find a replacement, then it meets WP:V. — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Where are these sources you speak of? I tried retrieving archives of the links with no success. You are asserting that there are replacement links. Then provide them. Otherwise, the content that cites dead links fails WP:V. Till 01:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I am not willing to provide them, as I have no personal interests in this list, but I have reached other users who do, and are willing to. I hope they do, eventually. Otherwise, we'd have to assume good faith and remove all unverifiable claims... — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - no evidence has been provided that the unreleased songs collectively are a notable topic. I am unable to find any sources which treat this topic in depth, and thus must conclude that while some of the individual songs are notable, the fact that they were originally to be released by Britney Spears is not a significant enough relationship to have a list on this topic. Claritas § 02:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: The above user was canvassed to this discussion. Statυs (talk) 03:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not canvassing, he expressed a concern that the list had FL status so I notified him of a FLRC page being created. What's "canvassing" is you begging me to "support" your Bruno Mars discography FLC. Till 03:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    But you don't notify people who supported the list's FL status? You single out one person who had a concern with it. That's what canvassing is. You never learn, do you? Statυs (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about? I'm talking about his concern brought up at WP:DRV. No one else mentioned the list's FL status in the DRV discussion, whereas this user was the only one who did so. Hence why I notified them. Till 03:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep assuming that within two-to-three weeks the dead links can be resolved. Any argument over notability seems to be pointless, especially reading the current DRV. Time to focus on improving the current list, and spend less time fighting with each other about whether this should exist in the first place. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note, a few MOS issues like SHOUTING in the ref titles.... but if someone is interested, this FLRC is ready to be closed as no consensus to delist in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have got to be joking. The dead links are still there...20% of this article fails WP:V. It certainly doesn't meet the core requirements for WP:FL. If anything, it should be delisted as consensus hasn't been established. Per WP:FLRC, "A nomination will be removed from the list, archived and added to Former featured lists if consensus to keep has not been reached". We don't close a FLRC as "no consensus to delist" when issues are still unaddressed, that's ridiculous. Till 00:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not joking no. We respect consensus so if the consensus is that a list isn't sufficiently poor enough to be delisted, it shouldn't be delisted. However, I do note your major concern that all the ASCAP links are dead, I would hope that's just a case of fixing them in a common fashion. Someone who's interested should do that as soon as possible. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't feel comfortable closing the FLRC as a keep while there are still dead links in the article. If we don't resolve tagged issues at a review, there's not much point in having a review at all. To me, the best solution is to allow a little more time for the links to be repaired or replaced. There's no rush here, and since the links are the main stumbling block at this point we may as well give interested editors a fair chance to find replacements or archives, if some progress is being made. If nothing happens, I hope some editors will reconsider their positions because I don't want to be the one to close an article with legitimate tagged issues as a keep. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Okay, looks like trouble then. The ASCAP website appears to have made it impossible to directly link to search results so unless someone can replace all those dead links, we won't have a solution here. No archives available either. I guess Giants/NapHit will have to make a call on the consensus here and close it accordingly. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • The ASCAP/BMI entries do not confirm the existence of an "unreleased song" in any event, pure WP:SYNTH. See above. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Ok, well I don't know much about that. Can you show me where a song listed by ASCAP does not confirm that it was an unreleased song? The one I looked up (Can Caper) named Britney as the "performer" along with the other information here. Why would ASCAP list an artist as a "performer" if the song hadn't been recorded? Just a question.... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • ASCAP/BMI are Performing Rights Organisations (PROs) who are there to collect performance royalties for the songwriters. The performer is an irrelevance to a PRO, only that a particular song is sung and where. As there is no interest by the PRO who performed a song, it cannot be taken at face value that there is "a recording by BS (or anybody else for that matter), or, if there is a recording the term "unreleased" cannot be appended to the recording - that is pure assumption - there may only be a "songwriter demo" and that demo might be sung by an unknown demo singer. Finally, the way ASCAP/BMI work, any songwriter who wants to register with them can do by signing the paper and paying the money - again no proof of existence of a recording. Hence my reference to WP:SYNTH. And... there's still WP:LINKVIO which I think is an even more serious problem. Cheers.--Richhoncho (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks, but can you demonstrate that ASCAP listings don't mean recordings/performances don't exist, particularly as the listing suggest the work has been "performed" since Britney is listed as a "performer"? I'm not saying I don't believe you but I'd like to external evidence that corroborates what you're saying. Right now all I'm seeing is your text. On the second issue, which particular links (can you enumerate them?) are linkvios? It could be quite easy to substitute them. If not, then I'm certainly in agreement that they should not stand. Thanks for all your help in this FLRC by the way, not sure anyone's got round to saying that! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to prove a negative, but for an example of an incorrect listing, if you search "Bob Dylan" under performer at ASCAP, there is an entry for Endless Highway, because it was performed by The Band on the joint album Before the Flood. As far as I am aware there is no Dylan performance, recorded or live.
With regard to registering a song, you will will see what is required at ASCAP - you will note that no proof of information is required.
I did start running through the references and here are my notes to where I got to:

1. US Copyright office. Does not confer the title “unreleased song” on any piece of work. Only that there is material that Spears or her advisers thinks might have a copyright. (it might be a poem or a lyric, therefore not an “unreleased song.”
2. Ditto. BMI/ASCAP. Only confirms that there is a song which the Britney Spears people think that performance royalties might be due. Again does not confer the concept of “unreleased recording” but of "performance." It should be noted that these two organizations collect songwriter royalties for the performance of the song - NOT the recording of the song (important distinction).
3. MTV Buzzworthy. MTV Networks. This site has links through to YouTube which has the 3 unreleased songs available. If the song has not been released by Spears/Record company then it is not legal, it is WP:LINKVIO.
4. The Sun. Asks the question, “Is Britney singing?” This does not make this an “unreleased recording.” It makes it a “possible” unreleased recording. Again there a soundfile which, if uploaded without permission (irrespective of who copyright owner is) is LINKVIO.
5. MuuMuse.com has inbedded links to SoundCloud - although the file is no longer available. There is also 10 lines of lyrics for “Everyday” which could/is interpreted over and above fair use.
6. Vulture/New York Magazine. Again inbedded links to mp3 files – although no longer available.
7. Hip Online. Confirms that BS and the Neptunes worked on an unreleased unnamed ballad, No mention of song title.
8. USA Today. OK.
9. Billboard. Another “leaked track with embedded link to unauthorised YouTube.
10. Animation World Network refers to an advert called “Can Caper” NOT a song however...

Thanks for your appreciation of my stance on this matter, which is quite clear, I hope, lists of unreleased are not notable, but subject to the usual WP constraints could be merged into Lists of songs recorded by...
Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Rich, okay, well it's clear this isn't a bona fide easy keep, and there appear to be more issues than just the dead links. Perhaps I should shut up in future and comment on things I know something about! In line with Rich's concerns (and those earlier issues from Giants2008), I'll move to delist this article as it stands. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_removal_candidates/List_of_unreleased_Britney_Spears_songs/archive1&oldid=1149971338"