It's been a while since I did a speedy patrol to check how our newpages patrollers were handling the A7 "no assertion of notability" criterion. I was rather shocked. by what I encountered in two short bouts of patrolling this morning and at lunchtime.
In the following, I list *only* the points of notability that were contained in the articles at the time they were speedied as "non-notable".
Michael J. Skindell: member of the Ohio House of Representatives, ranking minority member on at least one committee, co-sponsor of a bill to establish a universal health care plan for all Ohio residents.
Brian Brolly: founder of the national UK radio station, Classic FM, former CEO of Sir Andrew Lloyd Weber's Really Useful Theatre Company.
B C Joshi: Indian Army General, founder of a paramilitary counter-insurgency force, the Rashtriya Rifles.
Sambit Bal: A Wisden and Cricinfo editor, founding editor of Wisden Asia Cricket.
Jake Putnam: Emmy-winning journalist, has won other major awards.
Michael Viscardi: child prodigy, winner of the 2005 Siemens Westinghouse Competition, won $100,000 in scholarships.
Marissa Siketa: author put it up for deletion as a misspelt article. Should have been redirected to Marisa Siketa. Actress in the popular and longrunning Australian soap opera Neighbours.
The patrollers performing these deletions are all good fellows and are doing an excellent job, but there seems to be a considerable price in collateral damage.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
It's been a while since I did a speedy patrol to check how our newpages patrollers were handling the A7 "no assertion of notability" criterion. I was rather shocked. by what I encountered in two short bouts of patrolling this morning and at lunchtime. In the following, I list *only* the points of notability that were contained in the articles at the time they were speedied as "non-notable".
Did you leave notes for them all?
A7 is way too unclear, and some fools want to *expand* it.
- d.
On 12/14/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
It's been a while since I did a speedy patrol to check how our newpages patrollers were handling the A7 "no assertion of notability" criterion. I was rather shocked. by what I encountered in two short bouts of patrolling this morning and at lunchtime. In the following, I list *only* the points of notability that were contained in the articles at the time they were speedied as "non-notable".
Did you leave notes for them all?
A7 is way too unclear, and some fools want to *expand* it.
Yes, I left notes for them all. Even the guy who deleted the article about Brolly (not the same guy as the first deleting editor) while I was cleaning it up.
On 12/14/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/14/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
It's been a while since I did a speedy patrol to check how our newpages patrollers were handling the A7 "no assertion of notability" criterion. I was rather shocked. by what I encountered in two short bouts of patrolling this morning and at lunchtime. In the following, I list *only* the points of notability that were contained in the articles at the time they were speedied as "non-notable".
Did you leave notes for them all?
A7 is way too unclear, and some fools want to *expand* it.
Yes, I left notes for them all. Even the guy who deleted the article about Brolly (not the same guy as the first deleting editor) while I was cleaning it up.
Your fair share of those could be deleted for lacking context or being unverifiable, but some people take CSD 7 too far. I prefer contentious articles taken to AFD over being speedied. Tony, did you undelete these articles or ask the deleting admins to do so?
Mgm
On 12/14/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Your fair share of those could be deleted for lacking context or being unverifiable, but some people take CSD 7 too far. I prefer contentious articles taken to AFD over being speedied. Tony, did you undelete these articles or ask the deleting admins to do so?
Oh I don't hang around jawing, I undelete as the undeletion policy allows. I checked, and not one of those articles is unverifiable. They all clearly have plenty of context. Of these, I don't think any of them are deletion candidates, otherwise I would have listed them.
G'day David,
Tony Sidaway wrote:
It's been a while since I did a speedy patrol to check how our newpages patrollers were handling the A7 "no assertion of notability" criterion. I was rather shocked. by what I encountered in two short bouts of patrolling this morning and at lunchtime. In the following, I list *only* the points of notability that were contained in the articles at the time they were speedied as "non-notable".
Did you leave notes for them all?
I only looked at the first one (the Congressman), and that wasn't A7. There was no rationale given for speedying it at all, and I'm kinda baffled as to why anyone thought it would be speediable for any reason (check the history). A7 may be contributing to the problem, but it's not the sole cause: we have articles being deleted, or at least tagged for deletion with no rationale provided, simply because they need cleanup.
A7 is way too unclear, and some fools want to *expand* it.
How unclear is "no assertion of notability" for biographical articles? If it says he was Secretary General of the UN, you don't delete.
Re: expansion, all I've heard on that front is people asking that band vanity be speediable. This doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me, although the question of what to do with borderline cases is a big one. Consider garage bands that formed last week and haven't even decided what songs they want to cover, let alone done any gigs or considered writing their own songs, but have definitely had time to create a Wikipedia entry ...
Mark Gallagher wrote:
Re: expansion, all I've heard on that front is people asking that band vanity be speediable. This doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me, although the question of what to do with borderline cases is a big one. Consider garage bands that formed last week and haven't even decided what songs they want to cover, let alone done any gigs or considered writing their own songs, but have definitely had time to create a Wikipedia entry ...
I would not allow this one. There's been a few band deletions of Australian indie bands who *of course* they aren't on bloody allmusic, because it's essentially a US site. So one has to wade in and fix things.
- d.
On 12/14/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Mark Gallagher wrote:
Re: expansion, all I've heard on that front is people asking that band vanity be speediable. This doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me, although the question of what to do with borderline cases is a big one. Consider garage bands that formed last week and haven't even decided what songs they want to cover, let alone done any gigs or considered writing their own songs, but have definitely had time to create a Wikipedia entry ...
I would not allow this one. There's been a few band deletions of Australian indie bands who *of course* they aren't on bloody allmusic, because it's essentially a US site. So one has to wade in and fix things.
They don't HAVE to be on allmusic. But we do need some verifiable evidence they meet the guidelines set out in [[WP:NMG]] in some way. If Australian indie bands are at all worth listing, surely they have toured Australia, have a video out on national TV or at least some reasonably popular CDs out, right?
G'day Mgm,
They don't HAVE to be on allmusic. But we do need some verifiable evidence they meet the guidelines set out in [[WP:NMG]] in some way. If Australian indie bands are at all worth listing, surely they have toured Australia, have a video out on national TV or at least some reasonably popular CDs out, right?
WP:MUSIC isn't the be-all and end-all. A band may be included because it's very unusual, or culturally significant, or any number of reasons I'm too tired to think of right now.
For instance, I believe we have an article on a Melbourne twee pop outfit called Clag. Now, Clag only released one album ... but for a time there they were *very* popular in Melbourne's indie music scene. Their music is also extremely unusual: about as twee as twee pop can get without becoming nursery rhymes. Also, it's really good. But that's neither here nor there.
I'd oppose deletion of this band's article (I will be most hurt if anyone takes the opposite view solely because of WP:BEANS). However, there are thousands of bands out there with the same or less of a profile who are, and should be, deleted. WP:MUSIC is *generally* a good guideline.
There was a new user on AfD recently who opposed deletion of every band iff WP:MUSIC was mentioned by the nominator or a voter (if a nominator attempts to argue for deletion without mentiong WP:MUSIC, by the way, there's often something wrong). I am not nearly so extreme. But just because a band fails to meet the "notability guidelines" doesn't mean we should delete it. It's not a bad argument for doing so, admittedly.
On 12/15/05, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Mgm,
<snip>
WP:MUSIC isn't the be-all and end-all. A band may be included because it's very unusual, or culturally significant, or any number of reasons I'm too tired to think of right now.
For instance, I believe we have an article on a Melbourne twee pop outfit called Clag. Now, Clag only released one album ... but for a time there they were *very* popular in Melbourne's indie music scene. Their music is also extremely unusual: about as twee as twee pop can get without becoming nursery rhymes. Also, it's really good. But that's neither here nor there.
I'd oppose deletion of this band's article (I will be most hurt if anyone takes the opposite view solely because of WP:BEANS). However, there are thousands of bands out there with the same or less of a profile who are, and should be, deleted. WP:MUSIC is *generally* a good guideline.
There was a new user on AfD recently who opposed deletion of every band iff WP:MUSIC was mentioned by the nominator or a voter (if a nominator attempts to argue for deletion without mentiong WP:MUSIC, by the way, there's often something wrong). I am not nearly so extreme. But just because a band fails to meet the "notability guidelines" doesn't mean we should delete it. It's not a bad argument for doing so, admittedly.
-- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse
Like allmusic the number of albums available is just one of the criteria it could fit. A band doesn't need to fit all the criteria listed. One or 2 of them is enough. If the claim they're extremely popular can be referenced that, together with "their music is unusual" should make quite a case for keeping it. Unusual music would make them important to their genre right?
Mgm
On 12/15/05, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
But just because a band fails to meet the "notability guidelines" doesn't mean we should delete it. It's not a bad argument for doing so, admittedly.
I believe such guidelines are effectively a good guide for keeping, not deletion. If we could have a speedy keep criterion for the topic, and so forth.
In other words, if the WP:MUSIC guidelines spit out 'Yes, is notable', we should pretty much always keep the article. However, if the article fails WP:MUSIC, it is not an automatic delete, since other factors might make the article worthwhile.
-Matt
On 12/16/05, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/15/05, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
But just because a band fails to meet the "notability guidelines" doesn't mean we should delete it. It's not a bad argument for doing so, admittedly.
I believe such guidelines are effectively a good guide for keeping, not deletion. If we could have a speedy keep criterion for the topic, and so forth.
In other words, if the WP:MUSIC guidelines spit out 'Yes, is notable', we should pretty much always keep the article. However, if the article fails WP:MUSIC, it is not an automatic delete, since other factors might make the article worthwhile.
-Matt
Yep, my point exactly. Although I'm fairly sure the current guidelines are fairly thourough when it comes to including the stuff that needs inclusion.
Mgm
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
They don't HAVE to be on allmusic.
You wouldn't think so from the nominations!
But we do need some verifiable evidence they meet the guidelines set out in [[WP:NMG]] in some way. If Australian indie bands are at all worth listing, surely they have toured Australia, have a video out on national TV or at least some reasonably popular CDs out, right?
Or be otherwise significant. When I spot one on AFD I can usually bring the article up to scratch, e.g. [[Exserts]]. Original version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Exserts&oldid=11642117 Version after I saw it on AFD: current.
- d.
Bands usually have the same problem a lot of vanity biographies have. They fail to assert the notability of the band. If there's no information to check the guidelines against it's usually a good indication it should be deleted.
Unfortunately, "usually" is the operative word. There's exceptions. The only way you can help is make sure those assertions are made when the article is written, or before it's deleted.
That's why sources are so bloody important. You can't expect other Wikipedians to guess what the source was.
Mgm
On 12/15/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
They don't HAVE to be on allmusic.
You wouldn't think so from the nominations!
But we do need some verifiable evidence they meet the guidelines set out in [[WP:NMG]] in some way. If Australian indie bands are at all worth listing, surely they have toured Australia, have a video out on national TV or at least some reasonably popular CDs out, right?
Or be otherwise significant. When I spot one on AFD I can usually bring the article up to scratch, e.g. [[Exserts]]. Original version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Exserts&oldid=11642117 Version after I saw it on AFD: current.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l