Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gramsci melodic: Difference between revisions
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
Hi Mufka. I reviewed all of your comments, and I would agree with your suggestion to redirect the band members - I apologize for my oversight in regards to the creation of those articles. However, I still believe that the band as a whole merits its own article. As stated previously, the band has been the subject of independent, verifiable, and objective coverage. The article meets criteria provided under [[WP:BAND]] - specifically, point "1" and "9". Also,[[WP:BAND]] clearly states that the subject must only meet one of the criteria to be considered notable. The guidelines are ambiguous at times. The concept of "notability" is, itself, quite subjective. I understand that there should be safeguards to prevent e-vandalism, spamming, and other such abuses. However, an article should not be discounted simply because it is "relatively obscure." The mere fact that the article is labeled as a "stub" should be sufficient in notifying readers that the subject is outside of the mainstream. If Wikipedia only allows articles to be created for individuals or groups who have already achieved broad acclaim or have attained widespread name recognition, then the uniqueness that set this community apart from traditional encyclopedic sources has been compromised. I sincerely appreciate your comments and suggestions, even if I disagree with some of them. While I have visited Wikipedia for many years, I am new to the world of article submission and editing, so I am certainly prone to "beginner" mistakes. That said, please consider my argument. Incidentally, could you explain the AfD process? I read the description provided on the main AfD page and it said that the disputed article could be deleted within 5 days. However, I was unable to determine how the final decision was reached. Furthermore, if the article were deemed Wiki-worthy, would I be susceptible to these types of disputes on a daily basis? This conversation was certainly necessary, but I could easily see how it could become redundant if this label can be applied in the future by those who fail to check the publication/editing/log history of the article. I look forward to hearing from you. Thanks. [[User:Abtmcm|Abtmcm]] ([[User talk:Abtmcm|talk]]) 02:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Abtmcm |
Hi Mufka. I reviewed all of your comments, and I would agree with your suggestion to redirect the band members - I apologize for my oversight in regards to the creation of those articles. However, I still believe that the band as a whole merits its own article. As stated previously, the band has been the subject of independent, verifiable, and objective coverage. The article meets criteria provided under [[WP:BAND]] - specifically, point "1" and "9". Also,[[WP:BAND]] clearly states that the subject must only meet one of the criteria to be considered notable. The guidelines are ambiguous at times. The concept of "notability" is, itself, quite subjective. I understand that there should be safeguards to prevent e-vandalism, spamming, and other such abuses. However, an article should not be discounted simply because it is "relatively obscure." The mere fact that the article is labeled as a "stub" should be sufficient in notifying readers that the subject is outside of the mainstream. If Wikipedia only allows articles to be created for individuals or groups who have already achieved broad acclaim or have attained widespread name recognition, then the uniqueness that set this community apart from traditional encyclopedic sources has been compromised. I sincerely appreciate your comments and suggestions, even if I disagree with some of them. While I have visited Wikipedia for many years, I am new to the world of article submission and editing, so I am certainly prone to "beginner" mistakes. That said, please consider my argument. Incidentally, could you explain the AfD process? I read the description provided on the main AfD page and it said that the disputed article could be deleted within 5 days. However, I was unable to determine how the final decision was reached. Furthermore, if the article were deemed Wiki-worthy, would I be susceptible to these types of disputes on a daily basis? This conversation was certainly necessary, but I could easily see how it could become redundant if this label can be applied in the future by those who fail to check the publication/editing/log history of the article. I look forward to hearing from you. Thanks. [[User:Abtmcm|Abtmcm]] ([[User talk:Abtmcm|talk]]) 02:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Abtmcm |
||
I agree with this last comment. I am from Pittsburgh and a fan of the band, and they are very well-known in the area. More importantly, the article does not include anything that is not supported by an outside, independent, unbiased source. It's not like the author used shamless self-promotion. Isn't the point of wikipedia to inform the uninformed? I am a high school teacher, and am one of the few in my school who truly realize the value that wikipedia offers. Most other teachers discourage students from using it, I do the opposite. But now seeing what is happening here, I'm beginning to rethink my stance. Is this truly an open forum where resource-supported facts are welcome? Or is this more of the same rubbish I find with other online resources and hard encyclopedias where the few decide for the many? |
|||
Revision as of 04:13, 18 February 2009
- Gramsci melodic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Fails WP:BAND. Rankings in Pittsburgh City Paper are not sufficient to confer notability. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, There are other print copies of articles and coverage that are going to be included, but are not posted on the web for some reason. The print copies are available. Furthermore, the information provided was taken from legitimate articles. The articles were written by objective journalists. The article was not written by a party with any vested interest. There are no claims made that are overstated or fictitious.
Also, the information is encyclopedic in nature. Granted, the Pittsburgh City Paper Rankings may not be of utmost importance, but it is a legitimate list compiled by a Wikipedia-recognized, independent media type in a fairly large metropolitan area. Abtmcm (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Abtmcm
Hi Mufka. I reviewed all of your comments, and I would agree with your suggestion to redirect the band members - I apologize for my oversight in regards to the creation of those articles. However, I still believe that the band as a whole merits its own article. As stated previously, the band has been the subject of independent, verifiable, and objective coverage. The article meets criteria provided under WP:BAND - specifically, point "1" and "9". Also,WP:BAND clearly states that the subject must only meet one of the criteria to be considered notable. The guidelines are ambiguous at times. The concept of "notability" is, itself, quite subjective. I understand that there should be safeguards to prevent e-vandalism, spamming, and other such abuses. However, an article should not be discounted simply because it is "relatively obscure." The mere fact that the article is labeled as a "stub" should be sufficient in notifying readers that the subject is outside of the mainstream. If Wikipedia only allows articles to be created for individuals or groups who have already achieved broad acclaim or have attained widespread name recognition, then the uniqueness that set this community apart from traditional encyclopedic sources has been compromised. I sincerely appreciate your comments and suggestions, even if I disagree with some of them. While I have visited Wikipedia for many years, I am new to the world of article submission and editing, so I am certainly prone to "beginner" mistakes. That said, please consider my argument. Incidentally, could you explain the AfD process? I read the description provided on the main AfD page and it said that the disputed article could be deleted within 5 days. However, I was unable to determine how the final decision was reached. Furthermore, if the article were deemed Wiki-worthy, would I be susceptible to these types of disputes on a daily basis? This conversation was certainly necessary, but I could easily see how it could become redundant if this label can be applied in the future by those who fail to check the publication/editing/log history of the article. I look forward to hearing from you. Thanks. Abtmcm (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Abtmcm
I agree with this last comment. I am from Pittsburgh and a fan of the band, and they are very well-known in the area. More importantly, the article does not include anything that is not supported by an outside, independent, unbiased source. It's not like the author used shamless self-promotion. Isn't the point of wikipedia to inform the uninformed? I am a high school teacher, and am one of the few in my school who truly realize the value that wikipedia offers. Most other teachers discourage students from using it, I do the opposite. But now seeing what is happening here, I'm beginning to rethink my stance. Is this truly an open forum where resource-supported facts are welcome? Or is this more of the same rubbish I find with other online resources and hard encyclopedias where the few decide for the many?