Talk:Gateway Indoor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Edits by Hairhorn[edit]

A) This article does have sources that are not connected to the ensemble; Sabian, Innovative Percussion, Pearl/Adams, MCCGA, WGI, and Evans are all completely independent organizations with no personnel in common to Gateway Indoor Percussion. Many of these groups endorse Gateway, so the addition of truly neutral 3rd-party sources would help, but Wikipedia does not have a ban against biased sources, only biased writing. Also, it is the curse of many of these kinds of marching ensembles not to generate a whole lot of buzz outside of a specific circle, but still be culturally relevant. Nonetheless, in time these publications will show up.

B) The reception section is not spam; even calling it "spam" is obviously a blunder; it doesn't even look like it could have maybe been some kind of vandalism or advertising. From this point on I can only randomly guess at why you took it upon yourself to remove it without marking it for editing or starting a discussion about it like a reasonable Editor. Right now it does have a small problem of being tilted, but I encourage any editors who want to fix this not to nuke the whole section, but to go out and find negative reviews and add them yourself. Stryfe (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Look, phrases like "The group is proudly sponsored and endorsed by a number of musical manufacturing companies" are hardly neutral--they are in fact promotional, especially if they are followed by a list of manufacturers, many of which without wiki article but with a URL (a/k/a 'spam link'). I hadn't yet looked at the 'reception' section, but now that I have, I agree with Hairhorn: these reviews are not from reliable sources. Sorry. Also: if something is culturally relevant, one expects culture to remark on that. But even if something is culturally relevant but totally underground, we can't escape the requirements of WP:RS. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    • This edit summary is just silly, and the problem was not addressed. If another editor places such a tag on an article, you can't just remove it after taking out one word. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


Yes, a whole paragraph of glowing reviews really is promotional (ie, "spam")... suggesting that someone else find bad reviews for "balance" isn't going to fly. Likewise, reliable sources are those that are not connected to the subject, e.g.: not from companies that sponsor the group in question. Hairhorn (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)