Talk:Will Stratton

Question about this article

I notice the declination of the WP:CSD. Was the article ever deleted? ----moreno oso (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This article appears to have been deleted in the past hour, but has since been restored to its previous state. Schmittz (talk) 06:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. ----moreno oso (talk) 06:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I requested that it be restored last night. I provided citations for the admin, and he restored it based on those citations. 98.116.32.26 (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

One might think that but he had another request last night and acted after that request. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)----moreno oso (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

These two things are not exactly mutually exclusive.24.239.160.90 (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Multiple issues tags

Notability Debate

Multiple issues tags were introduced to this article tonight. Some of the citations used come from the artist website and are not the best reliable ones available. Sources should come from third-party neutral sites. In addition, while the admin, who may have deleted and restored the article, declined the CSD tag he used an edit summary that stated the article may meet notabiliy standards. I am not convinced of that because circular citations are used.

I'm confused. What are the circular citations? He has appeared as a featured artist on NPR on March 26, 2010 and was interviewed by New York City's WNYC on March 14th, 2010 in an hour long interview/performance piece. That being said, he qualifies under musician guidelines 1, 11, and 12 for notability. These facts are cited in the article with appropriate links. The citations from the artist's website are for factual matters otherwise difficult to back up, specifically when he started playing piano and guitar. The cited information appears as a quote in a short piece about one of the artist's songs. I can add that citation if it helps. Ultimately, the artist's site was not used as reference for any description or opinion about the music itself or his style, this it cannot be written from a non-neutral point of view. Schmittz (talk) 07:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

On the above grounds, I believe the notability tag should be removed, even if the others remain. However, I think that they are incorrectly applied, because a majority of the article is cited with third parties. Schmittz (talk) 07:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. You and the anon IP seem to be at odds and an edit war may be taking place. The admin was not firmly convinced; hence his "maybe". Please see Wikipedia:Bombardment. The quality of the citations is not the best or reliably sourced. ----moreno oso (talk) 07:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

So what do you disagree with, exactly? I have removed the notability tag again, and I have told you why. Citations include National Public Radio and nationally-recognized music publications. You need to back up your skepticism with some respect for the notability guidelines for musicians. 98.116.32.26 (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It was explained above. Please don't remove tags again because they tell other users what needs to be done with this article. Circular citations or sources are ones that could be viewed "as friendly" or arising due to the subject and are not necessarily independent of it. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That seems like a pretty slippery slope to me. There are already third-party sources from AllMusic Guide, NPR, WNYC, and a Sufjan Stevens fansite. What sort of source needs to be presented in order to avoid this designation, in your opinion? The hourlong WNYC broadcast alone demonstrates notability condition #12 for musicians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.160.90 (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Follow the links on the maintenance tags. If notability is not established soon, a WP:PROD could be in this article's future. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Why are you being so unhelpful? Notability has been established, and if it does not qualify because of some arcane Wikipedia standard, then why not make clear which standard it violates?24.239.160.90 (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)

And, to be clear, WP:MUSICBIO criteria one states:

• Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.

This article maybe one but not multiple, non-trivial mentions. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The tags are meant to be helpful to all as they tell follow-on editors what needs to be done with this article. Now, you can take two ways:

1. As for what needs improvement.
2. As an arrow to the heart.

If it was me, and an article that I worked on had a tag placed on it, I would work to find verifiable reliable sources. Otherwise, the notabilty maintenance tag tells you all you need to know or can expect. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not taking it as either. WP:MUSICBIO states that the artist need only fulfill one of those criteria in order to qualify. Criterion 12 has been established, so why are we focusing on criterion one, and splitting hairs about whether multiple mentions in national publications actually qualify as non-trivial?24.239.160.90 (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The key words appear above criteria one and are:

• may be notable.

If you persist in attacking my actions, this can be brought to a WP:AFD for full review and WP:CONSENSUS of the editting community. I would recommend working on improving the article instead. ----moreno oso (talk) 16:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing the artist's website is a good start as that follows the primary sources maintenance tag. While Joe's Pub may be notable, an artist's posted bio is not necessarily the best WP:RS source. Recommend finding something in a newspaper with oversight like the NY Times and not in a blog. ----moreno oso (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above post, criterion 12 has been well established (it's both cited and the audio of the interview is still available for listening). Additionally, the artist's albums have been reviewed on multiple music e-zines that have their own Wikipedia pages (see allmusic and PopMatters). If the e-zine themselves warrant wikipedia pages, then surely reviews of Will Stratton's work on their site constitutes "multiple, non-trivial mentions" of him as a musician. In that context, criterion 1 is also established. The problem right now is moreno oso and whichever anonymous admin deleted the page in the first place remain unconvinced of the subject's notability, but they have made no effort to express why they feel this way. The anon and I have provided MULTIPLE justifications as to why this article qualifies as notable, all of which are inline with Wikipedia's own published guides on notability. Thus, unless either one of the aforementioned users is able to provide an explicit reason (whether well conceived or not) as to why this DOESN'T qualify as notable, they are merely (in my opinion, of course) asserting their authority over the situation for their own personal reasons and not for the betterment of Wikipedia and in lieu of all presented facts. I will cede that some of the citations do not meet the most rigorous of Wikipedia's standards for citations, however, I would argue that anything published by a major New York radio station and NPR is reliable and for the sole reason that such organizations generally don't publish things as the result of pandering from the artists, do not qualify as "friendly" and thus do not meet Wikipedia's guideline for circular sources. Any sort of questionable source we have used (the link to Joe's Pub et al) was not used to cite "contentious material" which is the only time that the Wikipedia standards explicitly dictate that the questionable source is unreliable, so our use does not constitute the perfect source, but is in line with Wikipedia's usage guides. While the burden of evidence does lie on the person adding the information, we have given AMPLE justification for everything we've done at this point and at this point, if the opposing views are unable to provide counter evidence, then I don't understand why there is a disagreement. As far as I can tell, the people who want this page deleted, want it deleted because they don't find it relevant and are using the strictest definition of notability to justify that. But while you don't find it relevant, others might and in my mind, a reasonable interpretation of notability allows for the creation of this page for the benefit of those seeking the information. While there isn't much information, partially because the subject is a 23 year old who until a year ago was a full time college student, who is just starting his music career, that doesn't mean that the information presented isn't helpful, factual, or notable. Schmittz (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, no one is attacking your actions, we're only providing justification. This article does not need to meet criterion 1 in order to qualify as notable, it needs to meet one of the 12 listed criterion, of which is undeniably meets criterion 12. We are working to improve the article, but that doesn't mean it deserves to be deleted, it just means that it deserves to be improved. That's a sentiment with which I could not agree more. At this point, I do not understand in any way how the article could be up for deletion, but am willing to end the debate about whether the tags deserve for citations deserve to be there or not. In a side note, primary sources are allowed on Wikipedia, so long as they are used for factual information as opposed to drawing opinions. (How is it unreliable to cite the artist himself as to when he started to play piano? If he was lying on his website, then any reputable source will certainly propagate that lie, considering there is no way to disprove it)Schmittz (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Tell you what. I can set up the AfD in less than five minutes if that's your final take. Please improve the article. ----moreno oso (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are being so combative. We're trying to put together a decent article based around this artists work that deserves noting. We currently have some information about his early life as well as his entire career to date. There is a citation for every block of information on this page. The article is relatively young and thus contains little information. However, there are thousands of other pages on Wikipedia with less information and less citations than this page. Of course we will add it as more information becomes available, but the point of Wikipedia isn't to only include articles with the most information. I would appreciate your support and cooperation as opposed to your current hostility. We should be all working to make this page better instead of wasting time debating about why it should be a page in the first place. I am willing to cede that it should be deleted if you explicitly provide me with reasons that show it does not meet Wikipedia guidelines, but right now it is your personal judgement. Schmittz (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPA and don't refer to an editor as combatitve. If you want to end the debate now on this page with WP:OTHERSTUFF, then AfD it is. Please stop the debate here, improve the article or the debate will move elsewhere. ----moreno oso (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't a personal attack, it was a personal perception of mine. I have asked another user who weighed in on the validity of the article for one of Will Stratton's albums to assess whether my evidence for notability is sufficient. I'm not trying to end the debate with WP:OTHERSTUFF, I'm trying to end it by showing you that the artist is notable, but you have not described why you think he doesn't meet the notability guidelines. All you have said so far is that he doesn't. I would appreciate some constructive input as opposed to the most strict rule following. Wikipedia's own guides say that that is not a sufficient argument in any debate about a page. I am merely asking you for the same consideration that I have given.Schmittz (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

We agree that we disagree. I've explained it all. Time to stop the debate and improve. ----moreno oso (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I will, but I need more than 20 minutes to do so, but could you at least tell me why you believe the artist doesn't meet notability guidelines? That's all I'm asking. So far you have only said that he doesn't. It would help me improve the article if you would just give me a reason, please.Schmittz (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I too am still unclear on whether moreno oso has a concrete reason why this doesn't meet notability guidelines. moreno oso, would you mind clarifying? The back-and-forth so far has been less than edifying.24.239.160.90 (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've been asked to comment on this as a fairly uninvolved new page patroller. Reading through the above discussion, I'm inclined to agree with Schmittz that the maintenance tags are slightly uncalled for. I'm also slightly disappointed by your approach in this matter Morenooso. Firstly repeatedly threatening to AfD the article is bad form, and not a good way to respond to a sensible argument, if Schmittz takes the time to explain why he believes that the article subject is notable, then responding with "I can set up the AfD in less than five minutes" in a way which basically says you can't be bothered to actually address the issues raised by him, so will instead just threaten to nominate the article for deletion unless he stops trying to justify removing your tags. By all means set up an AfD if you actually think the article fails notability guidelines, do not try to use the threat of AfD to get other users to act in the way you want. Also, telling a user to read the WP:MUSIC guideline right after that user has just explained how the article meets MUSIC isn't helpful (as they have clearly read it), and I haven't seen you actually explain why the article doesn't meet this policy, there's a clear list there with the criteria for notability, and the person only has to meet at least one of them (which he does, and you haven't denied that). Saying that it doesn't meet #1 is pretty irrelevant to whether or not the artist is notable, if he already meets another of the criterion, and saying that it only says "may be notable" is a poor argument (this is fairly obviously designed for borderline cases, rather than so you can simply call any page you want non-notable). In addition, you need to stop seeing these personal attacks where there are none, bringing NPA up where it's clearly not needed (except maybe to stop your threats) doesn't add much to this discussion. Schmittz asking why you're being combative, when you seem to be (not really listening (or certainly not responding properly) to others, instead just making threats) is not a personal attack (it doesn't lack evidence, and isn't really that derogative anyway). So a quick summary: The article subject appears to pass at least one of the MUSIC criteria for notability (as has been explained repeatedly), you have not explained how the article does not meet this criterion, only threatened to take it to AfD. For these reasons I will remove the notability tag from the article, I'm not going to edit war over it, but I would ask that you do not re-add it to the article, instead, if you truly believe the article fails WP:MUSIC, nominate it for deletion. But if you do, please at least explain why it fails notability guidelines. If you want me to go into more depth on any point, please ask. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Reliable Sources Tags

Seeing as the factual references for this article now point primarily to articles appearing on NPR, WNYC, and Bennington College's website as well as the fact that subjective assessments of Stratton's work point explicitly to reviews where the opinions were given, I propose the deletion of the tag on the front of this page for the need for verifiable sources. I will leave it there for the time being but plan to delete it after a week or so, unless someone can give a reason why this should remain there. I have deleted the third-party tag because the article no longer cites Will Stratton's personal page. Schmittz (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. ----moreno oso (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

As moreno oso has once again failed to justify his position, I am removing his proposal for deletion. If you wish to shed some light on the subject, moreno oso, after repeated abuses, please do so. 24.239.160.90 (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

As per my initial post, I will delete the tag "unless someone can give a reason why this should remain there." Feel free to provide a legitimate explanation as to why the tag should remain moreno oso and I will happily leave it there until the problem you bring up is resolved, but if you do not attempt to explain the issue, I will delete it in a week's time. Schmittz (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Birthdate

In the most recent references I have found, Stratton is listed as 23 (as of June, 2010), however in articles as late as March 14, 2010, he is listed as being 22. Thus his birthday is some point in April, May, or early June. Does anyone know exactly when it is? Schmittz (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)