User talk:Wheljam

Welcome!

Hello, Wheljam, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as 5th of July: Single & Video, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Stuartyeates (talk) 05:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 5th of July: Single & Video

The article 5th of July: Single & Video has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable musical release. No independent refs. No evidence of reviews. No evidence of charting.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Single Series: Volume One

The article The Single Series: Volume One has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable musical release. No independent refs. No evidence of reviews. No evidence of charting.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Single Series: Volume Two

The article The Single Series: Volume Two has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable musical release. No independent refs. No evidence of reviews. No evidence of charting.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Single Series: Volume Three

The article The Single Series: Volume Three has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable musical release. No independent refs. No evidence of reviews. No evidence of charting.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What makes a topic worthy of being a Wikipedia entry

I created entries about the (American) band Watershed that are summaries of their released musical singles, because I am a fan of their music and enjoy working on Wikipedia (though it's more dabbling than purposely setting aside time out from my busy schedule to work on articles). Nonetheless, the band is not currently a major-label act - though they were courted by Epic Records circa 1995 and did, in fact, have a major-label release. Through a series of unfortunate events, they were dumped by Epic. Now, in 2012 they are more locally known, and still have an ardent following though again, they are no longer considered "big time." For more detail on the band's history / these events, their bass player Joe Oestreich recently authored an autobiography titled "Hitless Wonder: A Life In Minor League Rock N Roll" which I highly recommend.

This being said, I am now kind of perplexed why my inclusion of Wikipedia articles on the band's musical creations can be considered possibly irrelevant and may possibly be deleted. No offense taken, I am really wondering why. Is it because nobody else has contributed to the articles? Is it a lack of relevance due to my articles being incomplete (needs more references)? Is it because Watershed isn't popular enough to have more than a general Wikipedia mention? Is it because it's somewhat making a mountain of a molehill? To be sure it's more an exercise of my fandom writing anything up about these musical releases. I could easily spend the time working on Discogs.com and have as good a time doing something to participate in archiving the musical accomplishments of my favorite band on the internet. Or is it something more that I'm missing here?

For example, what differentiates Watershed from a "big time" band like Def Leppard? What makes a lengthy categorization of a world-famous British band's catalog of music worthy of being included on Wikipedia versus that of a smaller band from Columbus, Ohio? Most, if not all, of Def Lep's musical catalog is chronicled on Wikipedia. I like both bands fairly equally. So why should one be included but another possibly not? No, Watershed didn't chart. They weren't in heavy rotation on MTV (before they stopped playing music videos, but I digress). They didn't get Grammy Awards or make the front cover of Rolling Stone. I get it. But this is Wikipedia we're talking about here, not a popularity contest. It's a compendium of knowledge. Sure, not everyone may care about the different kinds of knots that can be tied, but that info is on Wikipedia regardless. I may never look it up (I just did...) but I know if there's somewhere to look for that knowledge, chances are it's on Wikipedia.

So, hopefully I am not rambling on too much here. But honestly, if I didn't think it was worth my time sharing my knowledge on Wikipedia because few people care as I do about an obscure topic, I wouldn't have wasted said time contributing. Hopefully I've warranted a little explanation. I could read all the help articles in existence that Wikipedia has to offer before continuing on, and try to see if I made an error, but I don't know if that will help any. Wheljam (talk) 04:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW just read Wikipedia:MUSIC#Recordings and though I understand what is written there, I still wonder the reasons which warranted what I wrote above.

Hopefully I'm not coming across as a jerk or ticked off, I'm neither. Wheljam (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't care about 'big time' or 'small time.' Wikipedia cares about '[i]f a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.' See WP:GNG for a more indepth discussion. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:5th of July DVD cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:5th of July DVD cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — ξ ^xplicit 00:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Watershed The Single Series Vol. One cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Watershed The Single Series Vol. One cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — ξ ^xplicit 00:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Watershed The Single Series Vol. Two cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Watershed The Single Series Vol. Two cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — ξ ^xplicit 00:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Watershed The Single Series Vol. Three cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Watershed The Single Series Vol. Three cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — ξ ^xplicit 00:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]