Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Larry Norman: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Lowercase sigmabot III does the archiving now
No edit summary
Line 213: Line 213:


--[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 14:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
--[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 14:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

==Malicious Edit Removal/Fallen Angel film recantations==
I added some info under the Fallen Angel secion, pertaining to the former "Failed Angle" website that has been changed to http://www.thetruthaboutlarrynorman.com and recent recantations by people interviewed for the film of the statements they made in the film. It seems to have been maliciously removed. I undid the removal. The user that removed my edit, [[User:Walter Gorlitz|Walter Gorlitz]] , claims that the source I cited "lies" with any proof of his malicious claim. The entire website I cited shows numerous notarized legal documents, audio/video recordings, etc. debunking claims made in the film, and is maintained by a biographer authorized by the Larry Norman Estate. This site is more reliable than [[User:Walter Gorlitz|Walter Gorlitz]] who fails to provide any sources or poof of his accusations whatsoever. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that [[User:Walter Gorlitz|Walter Gorlitz]] is associated with the nefarious and highly suspect director of the Fallen Angel film, Mr. David Di Sabatino.
[[Special:Contributions/71.168.245.210|71.168.245.210]] ([[User talk:71.168.245.210|talk]]) 18:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Startropic1

Revision as of 18:07, 5 February 2014

Former good article nomineeLarry Norman was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 13, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed

Linear notes

Is "linear notes" a thing, or should those all be "liner notes"? Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of the history, but all of the Solid Rock releases made reference to "linear notes". It could have been a typo the first time but more likely was an intentional misspelling. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as used here, it just gives the impression that someone who did a lot of work on the article doesn't know how to spell "liner notes." If we can't say anything in the article about the alternate spelling, and the "linear notes" are what would otherwise be called "liner notes", I would suggest just changing all the uses of "linear" to "liner." Would that change be met with objection? Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but I am not sure that is the best solution. If it were used in the body of the article there could be an accompanying explanation about the spelling. But - unless I missed it - the use of "linear" here is exclusively in the references. The problem with changing it is that "Linear Notes" is typically the name of the specific item being referenced. Proper referencing requires using the name as it appears in the original item being, no different than would be done with the title of a book or journal article.--CJ (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article length discussed at cracked.com

Honestly guys, I am concerned that this article is a little too sparse. We need to know more about Larry Norman, his music, his family, life, and favorite type of breakfast cereal.Hexrei2 (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of it is in there already, but bit the breakfast cereal, which isn't encyclopedic, but I suspect that you knew that. I'll assume it was irony (or sarcasm) and you actually still believe that the article should be reduced in length. If that's the case, I couldn't agree with you more. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you're saying - I started reading almost an hour ago, and I'm already finished. This does not reflect the informativeness I have come to expect from Wikipedia. I feel like I might actually have to go out and buy a biography of Mr. Norman.71.236.242.147 (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When you do, please let us know, as "71.236.242.147 Visits The Mall" sounds like an absolutely epic blockbuster of a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.61.150 (talk) 11:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is in desperate need of expansion. The man wrote three comedies for goodness sake, and this is merely glossed over with a single sentence! -192.234.13.58 (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article discussing this is at The 6 Most Needlessly Detailed Wikipedia Entries and this article is at the top of the list. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, the literary experts at cracked.com. ;) --CJ (talk) 04:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Charlie. Their point is quite valid, and it is drawing negative attention to the bloated article to the general public. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize, Jerry, the attention isn't a bad thing.--CJ (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see you're not familiar with that phrase. "Sorry Charlie" is a line from an advertisement for tuna. It is used to indicate that the subject didn't meet the standards. I wasn't calling you Charlie simply indicating that your point was invalid and theirs was valid, so too don't meet the stands. If the use of the term somehow offended you, I apologize for that. Please don't call me Jerry, since it's a term of used by British and American soldiers in relation to Germans and, as you can see, my family name is German and I find it rather offensive. At least it wasn't as offensive as some other terms you could have used. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm first generation German and have never found the term offensive - never even heard it used in an offensive way; but duly noted that you do for some reason. [Heck, some of my best friends are named Jerry.] I am, however, a vegetarian and find your tuna references unseemly. I think it's more offensive (silly, really) to state that another's opinion is invalid, so bear that in mind, Herr Görlitz. You are welcome to disagree with it but you can't invalidate it. I've missed you. Carry on. :)--CJ (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose that two unneeded pieces of fancruft Early life and career of Larry Norman and Later life and career of Larry Norman be incorporated into this now cut-down article. It may have been bloated before, but it isn't now. (Notice: I don't know a thing about this guy, so please excuse me if those two articles should just be deleted instead.) Beerest355 Talk 23:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They too should be cut-back but some of the material can be merged in. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For those who never heard of him, I am going to try to give a one-paragraph explanation about who Norman was. I never had anything to do with him directly, but from working in Hollywood (audio engineering mostly) during those years the name is familiar to me. I just did a web search, and IMO the article at http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/februaryweb-only/109-22.0.html nails it. The general feeling among Hollywood pros was that, in a sea of talentless hacks who would never make it outside of the ghetto of religious music, Norman had some real talent and choose to stay in Christian music even though he could have made more money in the mainstream. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As part of the cleanup of the Larry Norman page, I propose that the following pages me merged into the Larry Norman page and replaced with redirects:
Early life and career of Larry Norman
Later life and career of Larry Norman
Relationship of Larry Norman and Randy Stonehill (Currently in AfD; no merge is allowed until AfD is resolved or withdrawn)
List of songs recorded by Larry Norman
Musicals of Larry Norman
One Way Records
Phydeaux Records
Solid Rock Records
Street Level Records

I am not at this time proposing merge of the following pages, which I believe to be notable enough to keep as stand-alone pages:
Larry Norman discography
People!
Bootleg (Larry Norman album)
Home at Last (Larry Norman album)
In Another Land (album)
Only Visiting This Planet
So Long Ago the Garden
Something New Under the Son
Stranded in Babylon
Street Level (album)
Tourniquet (album)
Upon This Rock (Larry Norman album)

The reasons I am proposing these mergers are as follows:

  • Duplication: "Larry Norman discography", "List of songs recorded by Larry Norman", and the discography section of the Larry Norman page cover the same subject, with the same scope.
  • Context: "Early life and career of Larry Norman", "Later life and career of Larry Norman", and "Relationship of Larry Norman and Randy Stonehill" need the context of the main Larry Norman page.
  • Notability: The vanity record labels do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for stand-alone pages, but they do meet the guidelines for a section on the Larry Norman page.
  • Bloat/Excess Detail/Fancruft: this constellation of pages taken together is many times larger than the Wikipedia presence of musicians with comparable notability such as Bobby Day and Norman Greenbaum or even far more notable musicians such as Eric Clapton and David Lee Roth.

Background: As noted at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Larry Norman, Randy Stonehill, The Larry Norman page was #1 on a humor website's list of The 6 Most Needlessly Detailed Wikipedia Entries, having peaked at 362,211 bytes. It has now been edited down to a more reasonable 37,723 bytes. Along the way to becoming so bloated, the Larry Norman page spun off a number of auxiliary pages with spillover bloat and a large amount of overlap. For example, the fact that Gary Burris played bass guitar for People! for a total of four hours in 1974 is an unnecessary detail that really does not add anything to the page. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discography should probably be separate, particularly if references can be found. This is standard practice with musician articles. The fact that he was a prolific recording artist is not in doubt, which albums are most remarkable is all that should be presented here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable. I have removed it from the list of merge candidates. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of the now-removed discography, does anyone object to any of these merges? The histories will still be there if you ever need to look at the pre-merge version. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I really understand what is meant by these proposed "merges". Several months ago I cut this article down from ~250k to ~132k. It was still too big (I often have a hard time deleting information) and I have no issue with it being cut more drastically. I think the current version is smaller than it needs to be, though (less than 400 words in the "Career" section?) and I was planning to add some stuff back from the ~132k version, hopefully in a way that wouldn't draw objection. But it doesn't make sense to me that we would merge content to this article from these spin-off pages, because it was either a) included here as well, and was just deleted; or b) wasn't deemed essential enough to include in the ~132k or ~250k version of this article (or bigger/older versions). By any logic I can figure, we should be discussing simply redirects, not merges. Is that what is being discussed? Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia uses really strange, and in some cases stupid, naming.
Delete means that the page, talk page and history all go away. (An administrator can see the deleted pages but we can't.) That is not what we are talking about here.
Blank means to delete the content, leaving a blank page
Redirect is just creating the actual redirect, whether it is new or used to be an article.
Merge means to copy whatever is useful and usually end with either blanking the page or turn it into a redirect (depends on whether anyone is likely to search for or link to the page). The talk page remains as is. The article history remains intact. This of course means that you can copy whatever is useful just as easily after the merge as before. It also means that when what is in the article to be merged is totally useless, we can sort of pretend that somebody someday might copy some of it while editing the main article.
What we are proposing is to move some material back (possibly later) and to replace these articles with redirects, leaving the talk pages and histories intact.
BTW, I don't think anyone would have the slightest objection to you expanding the article with info from the merged ones. (I don't know your skill level, but if you don't know how to access an older version in the history, I will be glad to walk you through it). I really cut it to the bone and it certainly could be fleshed out a bit. The ironic thing is that the well-meaning editors who added too much detail (a rock opera that was never published, pretty much every place he ever performed) actually made it so that less people read the page. So please, go for it. Add stuff that is important and/or interesting. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know the difference between deleting, redirecting, etc. "Merging" doesn't mean to turn A into a redirect to B; it means to take info from A and insert it into B. What I was asking is whether we're actually discussing adding info from these other pages into this article, which doesn't seem to make sense because that info wasn't important enough to include in this article when this article was much bigger; or if what would actually happen is just redirecting (while preserving page history so that a merge could theoretically be done at a later time, if there were reason to do so).
The article does need to be bigger than it is, to allow the reader some basic understanding of Norman's career and why he was important. But I'm working on doing that by merging in info from the previous version of this article, not by merging in info from these other spin-off pages. Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the articles does not need to be bigger than it is. It is sufficiently large. I have had casual Larry Norman fans read the lede and say that's all the information required to achieve basic understanding of Norman's career and why he was important. It was previously too detailed, relied too heavily on primary sources and sources that did no fact checking. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have already merged as much as I am going to merge. I had all of the pages open in tabs when I was trimming, and used them where appropriate. I wouldn't mind seeing a modest increase -- maybe 10% or 20% bigger -- but I have no strong feelings one way or the other and am fine with whatever the consensus is. Then again, maybe I am not the best person to ask; I find the actual topic rather boring. I just saw a place where, in my opinion, someone had to (cue star trek joke) "WP:BOLDly trim where no man has trimmed before". --Guy Macon (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, FWIW, I did quite a lot of trimming before (and it was frankly in much worse shape, because besides being huge, a lot of it made no sense whatsoever and I spent half the time trying to figure out what it was trying to say before I could try to rewrite it more concisely). But I'm a woman, so... you might still be right. :) And, like you, I'm someone who just came across the article because it was huge; I've never heard of the guy outside of my work here, but I did find him a pretty interesting figure by the time I muddled through it.
Anyway, I've pretty much finished rewriting the Career section, which is the bulk of the work I'd like to do (and it's all I'm going to do today). It restores basic information but it still cuts out a lot from the previous incarnation (before you cut it down). While I know I don't own the article, and I'm certainly willing to discuss changes and potentially compromise on taking stuff back out, I find it hard to believe that anybody would look at the current version and think "Oh my God, this is so huge and excessive!" (For reference, the Career section was about 6,500 words before you worked on it, and it's about 1,400 words now. For a 40-year career.)
I actually do have some more detailed thoughts now about these spin-off pages:
* List of songs recorded by Larry Norman: This can't possibly be merged, and just redirecting it wouldn't make much sense. I think it should either be left alone or deleted (I don't really care which).
* Solid Rock Records, honestly, I'd probably vote to keep as its own article. To me it seems significant enough to warrant it.
* The others, I suppose I maintain my previously stated position to redirect without any intended merging of information. If that's what everybody else is advocating, and you want to call that a "merge", okay. Actual merging would inherently make the target article bigger by adding information from the merged articles to the target article. Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that Solid Rock Records should stay. There is no need for the list of songs as none are notable except those not written by Norman and none are referenced. Since the majority of the albums Norman released weren't notable, it's a hard sell to hang-on to the songs as well. If any notable songs are on an album, they could be listed in the discography, but only if the Norman version was notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Disagree that it should stay. Keep & Merge as part of the Norman article - unless someone can find a single RS that discusses the impact of label? I couldn't. It seems to have been a vanity label for Norman. Currently, the company with that name books singers for backyard parties. EBY (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Strongly disagree with keeping Solid Rock Records as a separate article. Make it a sentence or paragraph in the LN article. Besides the obvious lack of notability outside of Norman, it has material in it that violates our WP:BLP polices (we do not mention "rumors" of extra-marital relationships involving non-notable and non-public LPs).

We do have to replace List of songs recorded by Larry Norman with a redirect, otherwise every link listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/List_of_songs_recorded_by_Larry_Norman will stop working. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of the label as an entity apart from Norman precludes its move to this article. It affects and interacts multiple artist articles:
There were others who were signed to it and I'm certain that RSes can be found to support its existence, albeit pared-back substantially. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to Solid Rock, it appears there were several other notable artists signed to the label, and the list of sources includes several that appear independent of Norman (granted, I haven't scrutinized these sources). We don't seem to have a notability guideline specific to record labels, but it looks to me like it meets the general guideline. I suggest that it go to AFD. (I do agree it doesn't need to be so long and the BLP concern you raise is valid. I think at one point, there was a lot more text in at least one of these articles about the affair allegations.)
In regard to the list of songs... I had a paragraph written about why a redirect is both unnecessary and pretty illogical (because the redirect target won't have a list of songs, or any information about the songs that link to that article), but truthfully, and for no good reason, I'd probably prefer to redirect it and keep the page history, vs. just deleting it. So okay, I withdraw my objection to redirecting that one. Theoldsparkle (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • About 'Solid Rock' - can you find any of these cites or RS for its notability or confirmation of the other artists being part of it? I went looking. The imprint is mentioned at AllMusic (here) with 2 other notable artists besides Norman/Stonehill - 1 artist is a dead link, the other doesn't actually attribute any releases TO 'Solid Rock' in his discography. Norman's Reuters obit mentions the label in passing, more to demonstrate Norman's independence (here). The best cite I could find was CCM(here), which states that Norman used Solid Rock as a venue for introducing other Christian acts with a list. The problem, again, is that those acts went on to establish themselves at other labels - I struggled to find any charted albums with the 'Solid Rock' label. My !vote, such as it is, remains that Solid Rock be part of Norman's article - it was clearly part of his work but it doesn't seem to have existed separately of Norman or been notable beyond Norman's driving force. It can certainly take a chapter, and other acts can redirect to it. This can be an evolution - the article could certainly re-grow to its own with more information. Does it matter much if its part of Norman's article or on its own article? Not technically - a search will still link to it. It just seems Solid Rock was much more a part of Norman's narrative than its own entity.EBY (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two artists (Heard and Howard) are dead.
It was certainly Norman's major work and you cannot mention the label name without thinking about Norman, but it was an important label.
The article is clearly too long and should be edited hard. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for inclusion in an article (in this case Larry Norman), but not for its own article. See WP:NRVE and WP:COMPANY. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can't seriously be suggesting that the Solid Rock article is being used for advertising, which is what WP:COMPANY was about. I'm not sure why you think referring to WP:NRVE is significantly different from my referring to WP:N, the general guideline, which, as I said, I believe the topic meets. A search at Google Books comes up with several books that appear to have non-trivial coverage of the company. The media organization Cross Rhythms [1] has also clearly covered Solid Rock extensively.
Perhaps you were intending to refer to WP:N#Whether to create standalone pages, which seems far more relevant to your point. Although the label is obviously linked very closely to Norman, that doesn't preclude its having a separate article, and I continue to feel that a separate article is more appropriate because the label did release works by other artists (at minimum, Randy Stonehill, Mark Heard, Tom Howard, and Daniel Amos, as supported by various Google Books sources). Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy break

I am going to boldly suggest that the policy in question is "No organization is considered notable except to the extent that independent sources demonstrate that it has been noticed by people outside of the organization." Though the artists mentioned may be notable, the question on point is - do RS say that the label, as a company, was notable on its own (not as a subset of Norman's work) for the albums it released or the development work it did? EBY (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that WP:COMPANY was redirecting to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Commercial organizations, and not to the top of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), as that page's shortcut header indicated it did. This may have been the reason for my earlier confusion about why User:Guy Macon had referred to WP:COMPANY, when the redirect target didn't seem relevant. I've now edited that shortcut to point to the top of the guideline page. I'll reply to EBY's comment momentarily. Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your question doesn't seem to represent the policy you quoted. The policy prompts the question, "Do RS say that the label has been noticed by people outside the label?" I.e., if the only person writing about the label were Larry Norman, the label wouldn't be notable. To respond to the question you asked, I think it's at least as independent from Norman as a book tends to be from its author, or an album tends to be from its performer, or a painting tends to be from its creator. I don't think there's a burden to show that a company must exist fully independently of its founder, in order for the company to have an article. Also, I expect I am at or nearing my limit of discussing this here -- you're welcome to take the article to AFD for more input on whether it should exist as a separate article. Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't want to delete it. We want to merge it, and that discussion is happening right here. By my count the support is two for merge and two for keep. If no other editors weigh in, that's a keep -- no consensus for the merge. If debating this is stressful, simply don't respond. The outcome is unlikely to be different if you do. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we don't want to merge it. Possibly two editors want it merged. The rest of us want it to remain in place. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I !voted merge. This label feels like a Vanity label - for which there are no hard and fast rules about independent articles. US Records redirects to Usher, although it once represented Justin Beiber. Where is the narrative of this company best served in terms of classification? As part of the creative efforts of Norman or as a company with its own independent legacy? I haven't been able to find but the one article that mentioned the label by its own impact. I think we agree the information is valuable, it's just a matter of organization & placement. EBY (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly two editors want it merged (EBY, Guy Macon) and exactly two editors want it kept (Theoldsparkle, Walter Görlitz). Like I said, that's a "keep - no consensus for merge" unless more editors weigh in. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, consensus - not majority. I'm pretty easy to sway but I haven't seen any cites, quotes, or backing information for the 'Keep' argument. EBY (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One definition of insanity is that you continue to do the same thing expecting a different outcome. If you can't find any articles on this subject on-line, then stop looking for articles on-line, and start reading books instead. As I mentioned, there is at least one that discusses the label and its influence on the young CCM industry in terms of both artistry and possibilities. I have not had time to do the research but may find time on the weekend. I found http://books.google.ca/books?id=CJhaBvbmuOQC&q="Solid+Rock" which is one book I was thinking of. P. 51 is a good start. In fact, that first full paragraph succinctly summarizes what the article should discuss, along with a referenced discography of albums and artists. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I think what you mean is that you haven't seen any cites, quotes, or backing information for what you would consider to be the only valid "keep" argument. I've posted plenty of support for my opinion, which is that the label article should be kept because it clearly meets the notability threshold, it released the work of several notable artists besides Norman, and its impact was significant as documented by independent reliable sources. You don't get to decide that consensus is in your favor because the other side hasn't convinced you to change your mind. I'm not expecting to change your mind, and if you would rather accept that you don't have consensus support than seek out other opinions (it would be perfectly fine to post it at AFD while recommending a redirect and not deletion) that's your prerogative. Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*If I may redirect your ad hominem: Guy Macon was stepping discussion towards resolution by putting a stake in the ground with a summary. Good. The stake seemed (at that moment) more concerned with the count than the arguments. Not good. Thus my comment that consensus is not majority. The discussion is following due process; it certainly looks as if the article will remain. What happens after that is tomorrow's headache. EBY (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I, perhaps incorrectly, assumed that everyone here has read and understood WP:CONSENSUS. I did not explicitly restate the basics of consensus because all four of the editors I named have presented reasonable arguments, and in such cases it absolutely does matter how many editors hold each position.
I advise leaving Theoldsparkle's more aggressive comments unanswered, on the theory that everyone reading them can already see them for what they are: a not-very-severe case of WP:BATTLEFIELD. The comments reek of a "my position is obviously right, those who disagree with me are obviously wrong, and something must be wrong with them if they dare to disagree with me" attitude. As such, the best response is silence. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how I feel at all; that is similar to how I interpreted EBY's comment, "Also, consensus - not majority. I'm pretty easy to sway but I haven't seen any cites, quotes, or backing information for the 'Keep' argument" which I read as, "The consensus matters, not the majority, and since it would be easy for me to be convinced, and they haven't convinced me, that indicates their argument is not very valid and therefore there's a consensus for my own side." I apologize if I misinterpreted; I hope it's clear, if you understand how I read the comment, why I did respond with such vigor. I didn't say that if you disagreed with my argument, you must be wrong; I said that I had supported my argument, in response to EBY's implication that I had not.
I understand your position. I feel just strongly enough about my own opinion in this matter to maintain it and to make it clear that there is continued objection to your proposal. I have repeatedly encouraged you, if you wanted to pursue the merge/redirect, to take it to another forum for further opinions, and if you had done so and the decision was made there that the label didn't need a separate page, that would have been fine with me. If you're going to stop pursuing it, that's fine with me, too. Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to stop pursuing it. I don't feel strongly about it, and the keep arguments are reasonable, even if I was not convinced. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

OK, here is the list again and what it appears we have decided to do with them:

Consensus=Keep: No change needed

Consensus=Keep: No consensus to merge

Consensus=Merge: Replace with redirect, retain article and talk page history

Do Nothing for now: these require a different procedure

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Malicious Edit Removal/Fallen Angel film recantations

I added some info under the Fallen Angel secion, pertaining to the former "Failed Angle" website that has been changed to http://www.thetruthaboutlarrynorman.com and recent recantations by people interviewed for the film of the statements they made in the film. It seems to have been maliciously removed. I undid the removal. The user that removed my edit, Walter Gorlitz , claims that the source I cited "lies" with any proof of his malicious claim. The entire website I cited shows numerous notarized legal documents, audio/video recordings, etc. debunking claims made in the film, and is maintained by a biographer authorized by the Larry Norman Estate. This site is more reliable than Walter Gorlitz who fails to provide any sources or poof of his accusations whatsoever. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Walter Gorlitz is associated with the nefarious and highly suspect director of the Fallen Angel film, Mr. David Di Sabatino. 71.168.245.210 (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Startropic1[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Larry_Norman&oldid=594077225"