Talk:Buddy Holly

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

Merger with Maria Elena Holly

The article Maria Elena Holly has previously been merged and turned into a redirect after consensus was reached in an AfD discussion. It was restored from some version recently. That may be a good faith edit and there seems to be some good content in that article. So I'll put this up for merge discussion instead of just reverting, but since there was already consensus it can probably be done quickly. Averell (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Merge. She is not notable aside from her marriage to Buddy Holly. →Wordbuilder (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. The additional information will cloud the Buddy Holly article. →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose merge -- the inclusion of the Maria Elena information has brought digression and noise to this page. Details on her squabbles with a city decades after Holly's death add nothing to the reader's understanding of the subject of the article. If this is notable enough to include here, it should be notable enough to stand alone as an article. Jgm (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose merge Maria Elena as the owner of the rights to Buddy’s name, image, trademarks, and other intellectual property, has as the above User stated has in the last decade become notable be it because of her highly publized squabbles or not. The article certainly has nothing to do with wheather she is liked or not, but of her actions and there consequences. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose merge It's hardly ever the answer in Wikipedia. If there's a LOT of information that would clutter up the Holly article, keep it separate section here, but appropriate "summary length" (suggested title: Posthumous struggles for Holly's legacy) with the Marina Elena article as one of the the {main}s for it, as per WP:SS. And if you don't think a BLP of Marina is proper, you can name the subarticle as above, and keep it from being an inappropriate bio, while STILL keeping it a longer article about a separate issue. SBHarris 02:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose merge It does not make any logic to add two separate people into one article, as other users have noted. -Signaleer (talk) 07:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• Merge. The standalone article contains very little unique material, and all of the unique material is revelevant and appropriate for the main Buddy Holly article. Under WP:ONEEVENT it is doubtful if the article would stand up to an AfD, and if the decision was to remove the article, then it would be appropriate to leave a redirect in place. SilkTork *^YES! 10:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose merge As evidenced by the news coverage which Ms Maria Elena has gained with the controveries involved she is notable. It would be a "SHAME" to cludder and tarnish Buddy Holly's bio. with such nonsense. Antonio Martin (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

*Merge. I agree with the above comments. Whilst she has made thenews in her own rights in recent years, there are plenty of people the world over who have been involved in arguments with town councils. She has only made the news because she was once married to Buddy Holly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.113.57.165 (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Voting in consensus' is within the registered Wikipedia community. This is done to keep users from from voting twice on an issue (once as regestered a user and once as an non-regertered user), thereby avoiding Sockpuppetre, Thank you. Antonio Martin (talk) 08:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Merge. I agree with the above comments. Whilst she has made thenews in her own rights in recent years, there are plenty of people the world over who have been involved in arguments with town councils. She has only made the news because she was once married to Buddy Holly. There is little in the article that makes her stand out, as anything other than the widow of a famous person. —Preceding

Tidying up the article so it can be nominated for a GA

I'm placing the criteria guidelines here so they can be checked off.

What is a good article?

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

   (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

   (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

   (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

   (c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

   (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

   (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

   (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

   (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Check list

• 
• 
• 

1. Well written: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout; (b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and (c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Comments

There's a lot of good material here, and with a bit of work this could be brought up to GA status. More referencing is needed, and then trimming and tidying some of the sections. More info is needed on the music and critical assessment. It's all possible. Probably doable in a month or two. Let's do it! SilkTork *^YES! 10:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)