Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viscount Bells

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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Viscount Bells

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

I'm nominating 6 articles on percussion instruments here.

Spam with real claim to notability, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Purpose of these articles seems to be to link to Emil Richards site and to LA Percussion Rentals store and to call Richards a legend. Those two sites are not independent reliable sources. I found nothing better. Original research. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as lacking independent sourcing and required by WP:GNG. If sourcing is found and added to the articles, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ALL Puffery designed to promote richards and his business. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT delete! Please see revisions! Edited articles to make them more inclusive about the instruments in general. They are a start. Would love for others to be able to add to the articles to give more info about techniques, use in recordings and live performances. This info is reputable, taken from authoritative sources. Percussion is lacking a ton on Wikipedia, so it's highly encouraged to let these articles "ride" for awhile and see how they get contributed to. It would be a shame to delete these articles, because even though the instruments may be a bit "niche" or even obscure, they are an important part of film recording history and percussion knowledge in general. Percussion is about the niche, really. Professionals often don't even know what a lot of these instruments are when they get called for them, especially in scores written in the last 10-20 years. Wikipedia can help change that. Again, the L.A. Percussion Rentals source is reputable and an authority in the area of eclectic percussion. Again, please look at revisions. Open to editing ideas. Please do not delete. Really would be doing a disservice to percussionists and composers alike.Xylosmygame (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about whether this topic meets the WP:GNG, which is entirely about in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. To save the articles what is needed is not eloquent arguments, but reliable independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Whale Drum article. 2 more ref's. Helps? Xylosmygame (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two more links to shops, not independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two more ref's on Satellite drums also. Xylosmygame (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two more links to shops, not independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just delete the articles Tomtoms, Mark tree, and chimes then? They all leave a lot to be desired in terms of the types of references you're looking for and much of the articles aren't referenced at all.

Noticed that you're happy to keep the pictures I have exclusive license to, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xylosmygame (talk • contribs) 01:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those three articles are all marked as neeing attention, something I completely agree with. I'm not sure which images you're referring to, but if there are any that are being used illegally, feel free to mark them as such and they'll be dealt with. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing something as common as Tom Toms to these niche instruments does not help here. Wikipdeia is not a collection of everything. Subjects of articles need to be notable on their own. These article are not being considered for deletion due to the poor state of the article but due to a what looks like a lack of notability. No reliable sources have been found that say otherwise. Wikipedia articles should be based on what is published in reliable sources, not based on your personal experiences or personal discussions or on your self published website. They definately cannot be based around spam links to your shop.

Regarding your pictures, if you mean pictures you're uploading under the GNU Free Documentation License note the bit on the image pages that says "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License," then no you don't have exclusive license. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two more ref's (including a video interview) on Rub rods Xylosmygame (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you re-read what I wrote above, I used the terms 'independent' and 'in depth.' The first means discounts entries on sales websites. The second requires that the subject matter must be addressed in detail, rather than a passing mention. http://www.physicscentral.com/experiment/physicsathome/rod.cfm is a great reference, it contains extending text on the subject, explains how it works, and is financially and intellectually independent. Those are the refs to be aiming for. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The new whale drum references fulfill this also. Xylosmygame (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to remove the Viscount Bells article. I found a more appropriate article to add it onto, which already has sufficient references. How do I go about doing this? Xylosmygame (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

just that one, or the others also? DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

just Viscount Bells Xylosmygame (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A set of articles which read like advertisements and which lack independent and reliable sources. (I also suggest the article about the "Richards collection" which promotes a rental business be made about the musician himself). Edison (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2012 (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.