Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ArcAttack

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArcAttack[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not convinced of this article's notability. Although it has been mentioned by a couple of places that specialise in this sort of thing, I don't think it is enough; the author contests that the subject is notable because of the equipment used, which is a tesla coil, modified to make sound (Singing Tesla Coil). If the article is kept, I think it should be stripped down to the lead section, as, while the language used appears fairly neutral, I am unconvinced about the relatively large amount of information included, all of which was added by an editor with a COI who initially made the article solely from information copied from the subject's webpage. Jhbuk (talk) 14:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the references estarblish notability for me - although I think the section listing the band members reads more like a promotional site than an encyclopedia article. The page needs works, but I'm fine with the question of their notability. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think that the origins of the article are really that relevant, if Wikipedia is in fact a place where articles are to be improved upon to become more useful and informative. There are literally dozens more news articles out there on this subject and would be happy to improve upon it when I have a spare moment. I'm obviously very new to making wikipedia articles, but that doesn't mean that I do not want to do a good job at it. I'm still figuring most of this out.Epilectrik (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that you initially made the article heaviliy promotional, and argued that it wasn't. You clearly have a conflict of interest with this and the article is still not entiirely neutral. Jhbuk (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was a pretty ignorant way to start the article I agree, but I have been more than happy to apply every single one of your criticisms towards making the article better.Epilectrik (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also I'd like to add that I am in fact involved in the performance group, and I don't think that I am doing anything wrong by posting this article. I'm just trying to document our progression as it happens, and feel as though I am operating withing the required guidelines in doing so. I would be ecstatic if other editors not affiliated with the group would modify this article and make it become more useful and informative. Though what we are doing is still fairly new, I am sure within 5 years the subject matter of this article will be quite useful.Epilectrik (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm the author of this article, and I would like to say that I understand that the article needs a lot of work, but I don't really understand why you would contest the reliability of the sources. They are very straight forward, and suitably match Wikipedia's requirements. Also, this performance group meets at least 3 of the criteria for notable performance groups on wikipedia, without the use of the new technology involved. Please give me advice on how to make the article better, or edit the article yourself and change what you feel is not appropriate, but don't keep flagging this article for deletion for arbitrary reasons without at least giving me suggestions on how to fix it first.Epilectrik (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CNET and GIZMODO seem like fairly specialist 'gadget' websites which feature things not normally well known. These features, along with the one in The National newspaper do not seem like they make the subject notable; publishers like these make features all the time - what makes this one special? This source is a blog and should not be included. The reason I put this up is because I want other opinions about this article's notability; its notability is not as obvious as Epilectrik wants to make out - the administrator who dealt with the initial speedy deletion clearly feels the way I do: ie that this needs discussion. This is not just about improvements, it is about whether the subject should have an article. Jhbuk (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well take a little time to research the subject matter, and try to find any better sources of information which contest the information that I have provided. The fact that the subject matter might not be all that popular in main stream media might be true. I really do appreciate the help in improving the article, and becoming a better wikipedia user in general. As far as whether the subject should have a wikipedia entry might be a good question, but I think I've seen articles on far less relevant things.Epilectrik (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you read Wikipedia:BAND#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles, you can see that the National Article from Abu Dhabi satisfies the requirements for section 4 on non trivial coverage in foreign countries. The National is a huge publication in the UAE. So on at least that subject (and many more that I will add to the article as I have time) the notability requirements are satisfied.Epilectrik (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not all of the references provided in the article are what I would consider to be reliable sources, but there are enough of them. The CNET article is actually by a staff writer. The National article also would count as significant coverage. My own searches shows that they have also been covered in Wired. And although behind a pay wall, the title of teh article in the Austin American Statesman make it clear that the group is the main subject of the article. This represents multiple independent reliable sources providing significant coverage of the group. As such it meets the criteria for general notability. -- Whpq (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.