Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 August 1

Galbatron – Endorsed but this is potentially halfway there so the nominator should feel welcome to start a new draft in userspace and bring it back when they have something extra to add. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I now see you think the article doesn't pass notability guidelines. If you Google "Galbatron music" however, you will find otherwise. The band was featured at a temporary exhibition of the national museum of Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa. However, this exhibition was temporary; no information about it can be found online. One of the largest magazines on electronic music in the world, Keyboards and Audio, reviewed the band. This information too cannot be found on internet as the magazine is published on paper. This URL will show that the music has been downloaded more than 70.000 times on YouTube alone (after the mp3.com era, where it got more than 150.000 downloads): http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=galbatron&oq=galbatron&gs_l=youtube.3..35i39l2j0i10l8.36.1717.0.1878.14.14.0.0.0.0.211.1414.4j8j1.13.0...0.0...1ac.1.11.youtube.qGJQHZLdN7U The music is even used for light shows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uEoQImKS9o The music is readily available on both iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/nl/artist/galbatron/id395295374 and Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_srch_drd_B00456KRCG?ie=UTF8&field-keywords=Galbatron&index=digital-music&search-type=ss Interview transcript with Dutch radio: http://radio.nl/12261/hollywood-records-onderdeel-van-walt-disney-compa Books on music published by the band members: http://www.bol.com/nl/p/mp3/666877587/ http://www.bol.com/nl/p/praktijkboek-mp-3/666865082/ Galious77 (talk) 01:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not seeing much here. Youtube hits don't indicate much, if we decided that 70,000 youtube views or (adding in the mp3.com number), 220,000 over a 10+ year period hits meant something was notable then we'd have massive amounts of vague stubs about passing fads, vague curiosities etc. Similarly the barrier to entry of digital distribution is incredibly low, so availability indicates very little. The intverview linked says pretty much nothing about the band, and is a passing mention at absolute best. The books from band members don't seem to discuss the authors at all, let alone the band suggesting the world at large doesn't see that as particularly significant link or why anyone would be interested in purchasing the book. The offline sources might be important, but without more specifics (magazine issue date etc.) it's going to be hard to track those down. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The books contain countless references to the band and were published nation-wide. Galious77 (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The books written by a member of the band reference the band, that isn't an independent source. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 12:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You realize there's a possibility we were asked to write these books especially because of our notability? Galious77 (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse own deletion as reflecting the consensus, although participation was light. I would also note that DRV is not a venue to re-argue the AFD, or, as has been said, "DRV is not AFD round 2".

Stifle (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to call two people agreeing consensus... Galious77 (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Review in German Keyboards magazine (http://www.keyboards.de), one of the biggest electronic music magazines in Europe (published nationwide). They didn't like it, but at least they found the music notable enough to publish a review on it. Around March 10th 2001 Albrecht Piltz from German Keyboards wrote Galbatron "...can be described as a crossover between symphonic electronica, art rock and techno. Unfortunately though, their compositions feature techno only very sporadically. The second Galbatron opus gets stuck in bad prog clichés. Galbatron tries to cheer up and adapt their musical corpse to youth societies with J.S. Bach's overworked Toccata et Fuga in D minor, like YMCA doesn't play any other music these days. What a waste of talent and technology." Scan coming up ASAP. Galious77 (talk) 13:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Review in Keys & Audio (in those days the leading Dutch synthesizer magazine, published nationwide). Around 9 September 2000 the magazine wrote a positive (full-page) review about our album: Robotica. Scan coming up ASAP. Galious77 (talk) 13:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
National Museum of New Zealand In August 2000, Galbatron's music was featured at Going Dutch, a temporary exhibition in the National Museum of New Zealand in Te Papa about contemporary Dutch culture. Our contact person there was Michael Fitzgerald. The exhibition had a successful opening on August 25th 2000 in the presence of the Ambassador and many members of the NZ Netherlands community. Galious77 (talk) 00:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have contacted the museum in question. Picture of this exhibition coming up ASAP. Galious77 (talk) 23:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "Our contact person there", does that indicate you have some connection to the band? --86.5.93.42 (talk) 09:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll answer my own question, from elsewhere you say you have. I guess it shows how notable the band is that the only person trying to get the article restored is the people involved. I also notice that you say here that the bands website contains a copy of the wikipedia text, yet from what I can see the band don't conform with the licensing requirement of that text - wikipedia is not PD. As it stands if this article does get restored we would be unable to link the bands website as per WP:ELNEVER we won't link to copyright violations. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 11:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you check the history of the article, you will see that it was never started by us. We found it by pure coincidence years ago, and then we started helping editing it, as the article contained wrong information. Which parts on our website were taken directly from the article, which parts were taken from parts we added ourselves and which parts are original... is impossible to find out by now, and also not relevant for this discussion, which is about the deletion of the review. You bet we want to keep this article alive: users from Wikipedia started it in the first place and you people left it alone for years. Now it's suddenly a problem. Galious77 (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'd appreciate it if you could address the subject of the exhibition itself. Thank you in advance! Galious77 (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the band are not respecting wikipedia users copyrights is relevant, you can't just say it's difficult to work out what's what now, so it's fair game just to take it all and slap a new copyright notice on it. From looking at the contribution history I've no way of telling if the original creator was connected to the band or not, it does however appear quite obvious where any ongoing interest has come from.--86.5.93.42 (talk) 12:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you restore the article on Wikipedia, we're willing to do a complete rewrite on our own website, to make sure no copyrights are violated. Where ongoing interest is coming from is not relevant for this discussion. Of course we're not as famous as Madonna, so response will be less. Galious77 (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You really don't seem to understand how copyrights works, you are in breach of the license. It's your responsibility to put that right, I certainly don't see it as some sort of bargaining chip to be used. Of course where the interest arises is of interest, you may wish to stick your head in the sand and believe in your own enduring notability, the activity here simply says otherwise. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate it if you could leave out the personal remarks. Whether I understand how copyright works is not relevant for this discussion, neither have I ever suggested using anything as a bargaining chip. I simply do not see why I should rewrite our website because of an apparent violation of the copyrights of an article you and your colleagues deleted in the first place, especially not if half of it was contributed by the band itself. I hope you can understand we don't feel like writing an entire page on our website to make sure it doesn't look like an article that doesn't even exist anymore. How can you violate the copyright of a work that does not exist? Galious77 (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, I have posted issue numbers and dates of reviews of the band's music in the above-mentioned synthesizer magazines, both of which are published nationwide (in Germany and The Netherlands). I believe that says more about notability than participation in discussions on deletions of Wikipedia articles. Once more I would like to ask you to refrain from posting personal remarks like "believing in ones own notability" and "sticking ones head in the sand". I hope we can base this discussion on facts and not opinions. Thank you! Galious77 (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Review in Fears Magazine: http://fearsmag.com/REVIEWS/music/robotica/robotica.html Galious77 (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Music featured and mentioned in Dragon Emperor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk-OgUU54rs by MAT Games https://mat.subagames.com/News.aspx Galious77 (talk) 12:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the pre-deletion review discussion on my talk page, I encouraged User:Galious77 to keep the nomination brief, so it's disappointing to note that this is turning into a wall of text. I would encourage him/her to read WP:BLUDGEON as posting in large volumes to DRV discussions has been known to result in the request being speedily denied. He/she also appears to have a conflict of interest, judging from his/her references to the article subject in the first person. Stifle (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The original nomination was very brief. It became longer after I had to answer your questions. You raised questions and I'm merely trying to answer them. Yes, I indeed have a conflict of interest and have never made a secret of that, but that does not make your judgment more clouded, does it? I don't think this is relevant either, at least not for this discussion. Meanwhile no one has addressed the reviews in large magazines (issues numbers and dates posted) yet, and those are probably what will make or break this discussion. Galious77 (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Was consensus followed? Looks like it, albeit light participation. Has significant new information been presented? Maybe. (Then again, maybe not: at least some of the linkdumps above are irrelevant, like links to the music for sale on iTunes.) But that doesn't even begin to address the apparent copyright mess here (is the article a copyvio or the bands website?) OSborn ^arf_contribs. 13:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm prepared to accept the review in Fears Magazine as contributing to the band's notability. By itself this review is not sufficient for the band to have its own article, but I think it could be one of the two independent sources you need providing the other one's more in-depth. I have not been able to track down the reviews in Keys & Audio or Keyboards.de so I can't analyse those. Could you please specify these reviews by ISSN and page number?
The books by band members make no contribution to notability. Personally I've published a few books, but that doesn't make any of my projects notable in Wikipedia terms. A book about the band would clearly establish notability if it wasn't self-published. I'm afraid that the links to Youtube, Amazon and iTunes will be of no value or interest to Wikipedians. The interview transcript with the Dutch radio station does not help your case because it's not about Galbatron. It's about Hollywood Records' digital download service.
I see that the radio station chose to interview Loek van Kooten, which suggest that Mr van Kooten is seen as someone who knows about the music industry and digital downloads, but because there's no information about Galbatron, that interview can't serve as a source for an article about Galbatron.
I don't think the "copyright mess" is an issue we need to consider. The nominator has expressed willingness to produce a non-violating article and I accept that on faith. The question we're answering is whether, in principle, it's possible to have an article about Galbatron at all.—S Marshall T/C 13:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the radio interview does mention the band name Galbatron: "...zegt Loek van Kooten uit Leiden, die sinds twee weken vier nummers van zijn band Galbatron op www.mp3.com heeft staan..." Galious77 (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. In the course of being interviewed about something else, Loek van Kooten mentions Galbatron. What I said was "there's no information about Galbatron" in that interview beyond the mention of the name.—S Marshall T/C 16:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should have said (and forgot to) that Stifle's close accurately reflected the consensus and is endorsed.—S Marshall T/C 13:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:Snooker venues – I don't really like closing category DRVs but as no-one else has stepped up to the plate I'll give it a go. I'd be happy for anyone who understands categories better then I do to redo this if I get it wrong. Fundamentally, there is a tenet running across XFD discussions that we don't delete content because its crap if it can be fixed although WP:TNT is perfectly acceptable if it can't be fixed. Another longstanding tenet is that we don't apply different rules in different areas. On that basis I am seeing a valid argument that the category was over populated with incorrect entries but the outcome of the discussion was deletion not fixing. That seems the wrong outcome under policy and this point has come out in the discussion. I'm not minded to give much weight to the previous AFD as six months passed between discussions and consensus does change but I do see a clear consensus that the deleting CFD discussion was inadequate. On that basis I am relisting this. ~~(or will if I can work out how to do it).~~ – Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listing is at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_11#Category:Snooker_venues.

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The closer has not indicated what rationale is being used for deletion. As I indicated in my comments the category complies with WP:OC#VENUES. The closer does not dispute this in his closing comments. This category was previously up for deletion six months ago at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_25#Category:Snooker_venues and the result was a snow keep, since the category was found to comply with WP:OC#VENUES. The closer does not explain why the outcome this time is different. In short it's an inadequate close that falls far short of explaining why the previous ruling no longer applies. Betty Logan (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT is not really a strong argument in these discussions and consensus can change. Bottom line here is that while being a snooker venue may be defining for a few venues, it is not for the vast majority. As a result, the category was deleted. Several editors contributed going beyond the nomination with reasons why it should be deleted. As to the previous discussion, a discussion that was open for one day does not carry the same weight as one open for 7 days. It is possible, that if someone had followed this advice, but it shoudl be limited to (1) dedicated snooker venues (2) other venues where events have regularly been held for a significant number of years, from that discussion the issues with the category would have been fixed and it would not have even been nominated. Bottom line, is that there was a clear consensus to delete and multiple arguments supporting those comments. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for deleting either. The category complied with WP:OC#VENUES. The previous discussion agreed the category complied with WP:OC#VENUES, and no evidence was presented in the discussion that consensus had changed. Betty Logan (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like a little more discussion about the consensus assessment process here because two of the "delete" recommendations seem rather weak to me. Vegaswikian, when you were closing, how much weight did you give to Johnpacklambert's contribution and how much to Carlossuarez46's?—S Marshall T/C 22:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably about equal. JPL gave a detailed reason for deletion, but Carlossuarez46 showed how the category as constructed does not meet WP:OC#VENUES. However one could argue that Carlossuarez46's should have been given much more weight since it strikes directly at the problem with the category. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - What concerns me, I think, is that the category was said to exist "...for venues that are principally established for, or which are notable as, places for the playing of snooker". As I understand it, the argument for deletion of the category was that most places in it didn't meet this criterion, and that if they were removed, then the category would be very small. Johnpacklambert and Carlossuarez46 (clearly) agreed. But I can't yet make sense of this, it doesn't seem to follow. It seems to me that if most places in the category didn't belong in it then the category should be depopulated. That would leave a small number of places in it, true. But on what policy basis do you get from that to turning the category into a redlink?—S Marshall T/C 23:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Since there is no easy way to follow membership changes in categories, inclusion criteria that requires maintenance of contents tend to be deleted. It is common for editors to offer to cleanup the contents in these cases. In the past this has not worked since the editors realize the amount of work involved and leave the mess to build. Once you establish a category, editors just look at the name and not the inclusion criteria. So if the name does not limit adding an article to the category we have a problem. Hence the point of Sydney, and many other places, being in the category. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned that this was not relisted to get greater input, especially given the previous snow keep on substantively the same nomination rationale. Of course consensus can change, but this seems to be an extreme overturning of recent consensus on pretty flimsy participation. I would support overturning on procedural grounds that the conversation was insufficient to overturn previous consensus. Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 00:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest a relist given the nature of the two discussions. I'm also a bit worried about the account that did the second nomination. A new account but clearly one who isn't new. Something feels off. Hobit (talk) 00:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
remain deleted I am indeed not "new" but my connection to this category is nothing more than that I did a big fix-up of Tempodrom, which I was surprised to find in the category since no source I used mentioned snooker. From what I can tell snooker is just one of many events which happen to fit Tempodrom's main arena, but from what I can tell its main business is musical performances. I then started looking at other members and found the same pattern of general-purpose facilities which happened to host this or that championship, or which were resorts which happened to have snooker tables. The category therefore did not seem defining, which is a more general requirement. Also, as I said in the deletion discussion, it seems to me that the first two criteria mentioned in WP:OC#VENUES were more applicable, particularly the example of Madison Square Garden. I was surprised that this was resolved so quickly, but consensus can change. Seyasirt (talk) 03:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relist: Betty Logan is correct. This was snow-kept, then only six months later relisted for deletion, then deleted without any actual valid rationale for deleting it, on the basis of far too little participation. IDONTLIKE it is definitely not a valid XfD rationale, and neither is "maybe not enough people will notice to !vote to keep this time", which is a blatantly WP:PARENT/WP:TD approach to take to XfDs or any other process here. Just because you failed to get something deleted a few months ago is not cart blanche to re-XfD it again after a few months, and again and again; it's strong evidence that the community doesn't agree with you and you need to drop it. This CfD very definitely should have been relisted. Much of the above verbiage about whether or not the category was "too small" (there is no hard-and-fast rule about that anyway) doesn't belong here, but at CfD. DRV is for procedural matters. This was not a properly closed CfD. Some of these out-of-place rationales aren't even valid anyway, even at CfD (e.g. the claim that the category had items appearing in it that don't belong in it; that's an argument for cleaning up those articles' categorizations, not for deleting the category). People adding inappropriate things like "Syndey, Australia" is not any kind of problem with this category in particular, but all sports-venue and similar categories. It's wrongheaded to attack this one in particular, a poorly "defended" one from a wikiproject that doesn't have hundreds of active editors, when if the problem is real it's far broader and needs a more systemic approach.
I'm not sure what it is, but WP:CUESPORTS-related categories, articles, templates and other pages are frequently subject to IDONTLIKE-style XfDs, as if people who just don't think pool, billiards and snooker are important have a deletion agenda they're pursuing. I find it interesting that shortly after I (one of the most active cue sports editors) announced I'm retiring from regular WP editing (I only respond to certain XfD, ANI/A and other procedural things that people draw my attention to, and only if I consider them loose ends that need my attention, like this DRV), there's suddenly been a sharp increase in pointless XfDs against cue-sports-related pages. Coincidence? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 03:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I had gone and removed all the problematic entries (which is to say, all but one or two) to demonstrate the problem with the category and then nominated it for deletion as being too small, one of you would have reverted all that. As a rule you have to leave a category as-is when nominating it for any action, or people chastise you for trying to skew things. And as far as coincidence is concerned: yes, it is exactly that. I hit "random article" looking for articles to copyedit, and got Tempodrom, which needed it badly (and in fact sent me to the college library to look at old Architecture Review articles). When I was done, I looked at the categories and discovered this snooker category; but no article I came across mentioned snooker. And when I looked at the category, I saw a mixture of conference centers, arenas, and resorts with a snooker table or two. If that's when you chose to quit, it's just coincidence. Seyasirt (talk) 23:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: You can't see what was in the category any more, but Seyasirt's claim that there were only "one or two" articles that qualified for membership is not factually accurate and misleading, and if it were accurate it was the incorrect approach anyway. There were only two article about special-purpose snooker halls, but no-one would seriously dispute the Crucible Theatre's notability as a snooker venue. In fact there are many venues like leisure and conference centres that are only notable as snooker venues. I notice we're still waiting on an explanation as to why a populated category that was consistent with WP:OC#VENUES was deleted. Betty Logan (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute it. It is a theater which happens to host a snooker championship.It is not a defining characteristic of the place. Seyasirt (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Relist Even if there are only a few qualifying facilities, its a valid category. That some of the items in a category shouldnt be there is not a reason to delete the category, just edit the categorization of the relevant articles. DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relist – the previous discussion was open for 4 days (not 1 day), was quite recent, attracted more opinions and was unanimous. Discussions often follow the first persuasive response: this was SMcCandlish's in the first discussion, and is equally persuasive on 2nd reading. Oculi (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 August 2013[edit]