Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimensionaut
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. J04n(talk page) 20:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dimensionaut[edit]
- Dimensionaut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not yet released. WP:CRYSTAL Robert McClenon (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:CRYSTAL indeed, but even post release would not pass WP:MUSIC (yet).Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per: WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTADVERTISING. The article is premature and would serve only as advertisement for the album, the band, and the album's label. Even though a future release date for the album has been determined, there is nothing to say the album will be released on that date, nor that it will ever be released. The band that recorded the album has no previous releases. If this were a band with prior albums, I could possibly see this article as relevant before the release date. The article creator also has been in personal contact with at least one of the band members amid has admitted that one band member has asked for specific edits at the article on him as well as the band's article. I would assume this article is no exception. While I'm not saying WP:COI definitely applies, because of their personal contact, that makes is a possibility. Winkelvi (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete. I am the article's creator. As I have stated before, my interests are in developing an article to Wikipedia's standards, not to cater to the band members. The only reason said band member was in contact with Winkelvi and myself was because he had apparently tried to edit his own page, and had consequently caused the article to be up for speedy deletion. I stepped in to prevent the page from being deleted by reverting all edits by his party, and told him why such edits were not acceptable. In that conversation, the band member told me how he felt the page should have been edited, which I disagreed with. The only contact made has been on a Wikipedia talk page. I am in no way interested in assisting them as Winkelvi seems to believe, and am insulted at the thought. I have previously told this to Winkelvi and have worked with him to clean up the band's page, and fail to see why this article is up for deletion. He seems to be the one who flagged the page for deletion after two weeks of its existence, as indicated in the edit history, and has warred on varying issues with myself on various matters.
- He has reworded articles on numerous occasions on the grounds of being overly-sourced and has stripped paragraphs to their bare minimum; some of these revisions have since been reverted or compromises have been made, and the articles remain just fine. The very use of particular sources had to be clarified by a veteran editor, Spanglej, as Winkelvi believed primary sources could not be used at all. He flagged this article for speedy deletion on the grounds of WP:NOTADVERTISING despite being told subsequently there was no unambiguous advertising on the page. Aside from the album being a future release, there seems no other reason to delete the article. If creating this page on the date of release is any more acceptable, so be it. If verifiability is an issue, there have been multiple reviews published within the last few days to verify the album's existence. As I have less experience than others, I would like to hear what justifies the deletion of this article. Vuzor (talk) 06:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are three reviews, all published within the past few days, as well as an Allmusic page for the album:
- Here is an image of the album itself, taken by the band from its merchandising desk on their tour:
- From their Facebook page:
- "Sound of Contact Vinyl double album coming in the Fall. Thanks for your support everybody! CDs available at the shows now. Or on Pre order. European release date is May 20th. US is May 28th.
- Friday at 10:32pm"
- Vuzor (talk) 06:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As it says at WP:NALBUMS, "An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article." So merely delaying the article until the date of release will not suffice to show notability. Nothing the band or production company says (or any promotional material) is of any use for demonstrating notability, which has to come from reliable independent third-party sources. The third party sources already suggested might be sufficient, but I don't have time to examine them myself, so I'll have to leave that for others - this is just meant as a bit of help regarding what is needed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A simple track listing at allmusic does not demonstrate notability either - but the three reviews may be sufficient. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I removed the section about the band's tour and details about the band's touring musicians, as the article is about the album and not the band - brief details of the tour might be appropriate in the band article itself. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the second time it has been removed, then, because I removed it yesterday for the exact same reason as Boing! and stated as much in the edit summary. The article's creator replaced it. Winkelvi (talk) 08:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, so you did. I've started a section on the article Talk page. Article creator, please do not re-add the disputed content without gaining a consensus at the Talk page first - repeated re-insertion of disputed content is considered edit warring. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the second time it has been removed, then, because I removed it yesterday for the exact same reason as Boing! and stated as much in the edit summary. The article's creator replaced it. Winkelvi (talk) 08:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand. I am glad the reviews may be enough to prevent the article's deletion. I believe Rolling Stone will be issuing a review of the album, as they did an interview with the band a few weeks ago. They usually release their reviews on the day of each album's release. I will watch closely for that review, as well as others, over the next two weeks. I have no intention of edit warring, but I have previously reverted revisions by Winkelvi that I have disagreed with and that contributed little; such edits actually generated spelling mistakes and awkward wording. To dispute that the band is British-based is as trivial as the edits come. I will keep the page in its current form until the issue is resolved. Hopefully the article can remain. If there is any additional evidence you require in order to keep the page intact, please discuss them. Thank you. Vuzor (talk) 10:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Check that. The reviews have been removed from the page as sources, as they are considered "advertising." Absurd. Absolutely absurd. First primary sources could not be used for biographical information according to Winkelvi, now third-party reviews can not be used? How can notability be proven if the very sources required are forbidden? You said it yourself on your talk page, Winkelvi -- there's still a learning curve. You've been corrected a few times now by more experienced editors. The reason I reverted your revision is because I have difficulty trusting your judgment regarding Wikipedia's guidelines. You have been at odds with me on even the smallest, most miniscule revisions; you've made incorrect grammatical changes, rewritten certain portions without making actual improvements to the article, and have even flipped England and Vancouver in a list for the sake of flipping the two. You've incorrectly flagged pages, and have had other editors correct your assumptions. Your insistence that no primary sources of any kind be used to create the Sound of Contact page caused a major fuss until Spanglej contradicted your assumption. You are the reason I ever had any contact with the aforementioned band member, as I stepped in to explain what on Earth was going on, first telling him primary sources weren't allowed based on your argument, then telling him they were allowed. Your repeated accusations that I have anything to do with the band is extremely ignorant considering the role I played as the mediator while the sides were feuding. I'd like to see more editors look after these pages simply so that change isn't made for the sake of change. Vuzor (talk) 10:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And I've reverted the removal. The inclusion of links to reviews is pretty standard for music articles, as is a brief mention of whether reviews are good are bad (and they clearly are positive reviews) - not everything that sounds positive is "advertising", and it's important not to become over-zealous about it. Also, as an aside, whatever the notability status of the album is now, I feel sure it will be notable some day or other because of who is in the band. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As for primary sources, they can be used to confirm factual statements in various circumstances - for example, the best evidence for "X said Y" might be a source in which X actually said Y. The problem with primary sources is that they are not sufficient for providing notability, or in many cases for supporting factual claims (for example, a primary source might support "X said Y", while not supporting the truth of "Y"). But once we have suitable secondary sources, primary sources can be used additionally - but it depends on circumstances. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really appreciating Vuzor's tone and the borderline incivility and personal attacks. Yes, I still consider myself on a learning curve here. That doesn't mean I am "ignorant" as he has said above. It also doesn't mean I deserve to be raked over the coals and have all my mistakes aired here. This isn't the place for it and it's just inappropriate, period. His inappropriate comments lead me to believe he's taking this personally. It's not personal. I've told him that on his talk page. Now I have to wonder why he's taking it personally. Beyond all that, his laundry list of my mistakes are taking away from the fact that the article shouldn't exist right now for at least one of the reasons listed above: WP:CRYSTAL. Another editor pointed out it wouldn't pass the muster even after the album is released. These are the issues at hand in this forum, not him, not me, and certainly not who made what mistakes when. Can we please take it back to the reason the request for deletion was brought here in the first place? Winkelvi (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there's any animosity intended here, and a defensive reaction is common when people see their work criticized - even if that criticism is in good faith and well-intentioned. But yes, let's stick to discussing the article and whether it should be deleted. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If it seemed there was any animosity in my words, I apologize. I have been frustrated by his accusations of myself having any relationship with the band, a claim I have denied several times. I would like to move past that, but it continues to be brought up as if repeating it would somehow make it more valid. It's entirely unfair. That was one of the reasons this article was flagged, though there is absolutely no truth to it. I am fine with this article facing adversity. It provides us all with a learning experience and allows us to become better editors as a result. I certainly welcome returning to the discussion about the article. We seem to have cleared up the issue of WP:NALBUMS by citing reviews to confirm its presence within and beyond the music industry. Please confirm if there is anything more to that specific issue. If not, the only issue, as Winkelvi has said above is WP:CRYSTAL. In that case, once the album is released that hurdle would be conquered, wouldn't it? Let me know the circumstances regarding what specifically would resolve WP:CRYSTAL. Thanks. Vuzor (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Once the album is released, what exactly would distinguish this article from being one that can exist? That question may help to resolve this debate. Vuzor (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Essentially, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which means sources talking about the album in some depth rather than just confirming its existence. I'd say reasonably in-depth reviews by mainstream sources should do it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Once the album is released, what exactly would distinguish this article from being one that can exist? That question may help to resolve this debate. Vuzor (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If it seemed there was any animosity in my words, I apologize. I have been frustrated by his accusations of myself having any relationship with the band, a claim I have denied several times. I would like to move past that, but it continues to be brought up as if repeating it would somehow make it more valid. It's entirely unfair. That was one of the reasons this article was flagged, though there is absolutely no truth to it. I am fine with this article facing adversity. It provides us all with a learning experience and allows us to become better editors as a result. I certainly welcome returning to the discussion about the article. We seem to have cleared up the issue of WP:NALBUMS by citing reviews to confirm its presence within and beyond the music industry. Please confirm if there is anything more to that specific issue. If not, the only issue, as Winkelvi has said above is WP:CRYSTAL. In that case, once the album is released that hurdle would be conquered, wouldn't it? Let me know the circumstances regarding what specifically would resolve WP:CRYSTAL. Thanks. Vuzor (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there's any animosity intended here, and a defensive reaction is common when people see their work criticized - even if that criticism is in good faith and well-intentioned. But yes, let's stick to discussing the article and whether it should be deleted. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really appreciating Vuzor's tone and the borderline incivility and personal attacks. Yes, I still consider myself on a learning curve here. That doesn't mean I am "ignorant" as he has said above. It also doesn't mean I deserve to be raked over the coals and have all my mistakes aired here. This isn't the place for it and it's just inappropriate, period. His inappropriate comments lead me to believe he's taking this personally. It's not personal. I've told him that on his talk page. Now I have to wonder why he's taking it personally. Beyond all that, his laundry list of my mistakes are taking away from the fact that the article shouldn't exist right now for at least one of the reasons listed above: WP:CRYSTAL. Another editor pointed out it wouldn't pass the muster even after the album is released. These are the issues at hand in this forum, not him, not me, and certainly not who made what mistakes when. Can we please take it back to the reason the request for deletion was brought here in the first place? Winkelvi (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Check that. The reviews have been removed from the page as sources, as they are considered "advertising." Absurd. Absolutely absurd. First primary sources could not be used for biographical information according to Winkelvi, now third-party reviews can not be used? How can notability be proven if the very sources required are forbidden? You said it yourself on your talk page, Winkelvi -- there's still a learning curve. You've been corrected a few times now by more experienced editors. The reason I reverted your revision is because I have difficulty trusting your judgment regarding Wikipedia's guidelines. You have been at odds with me on even the smallest, most miniscule revisions; you've made incorrect grammatical changes, rewritten certain portions without making actual improvements to the article, and have even flipped England and Vancouver in a list for the sake of flipping the two. You've incorrectly flagged pages, and have had other editors correct your assumptions. Your insistence that no primary sources of any kind be used to create the Sound of Contact page caused a major fuss until Spanglej contradicted your assumption. You are the reason I ever had any contact with the aforementioned band member, as I stepped in to explain what on Earth was going on, first telling him primary sources weren't allowed based on your argument, then telling him they were allowed. Your repeated accusations that I have anything to do with the band is extremely ignorant considering the role I played as the mediator while the sides were feuding. I'd like to see more editors look after these pages simply so that change isn't made for the sake of change. Vuzor (talk) 10:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand. I am glad the reviews may be enough to prevent the article's deletion. I believe Rolling Stone will be issuing a review of the album, as they did an interview with the band a few weeks ago. They usually release their reviews on the day of each album's release. I will watch closely for that review, as well as others, over the next two weeks. I have no intention of edit warring, but I have previously reverted revisions by Winkelvi that I have disagreed with and that contributed little; such edits actually generated spelling mistakes and awkward wording. To dispute that the band is British-based is as trivial as the edits come. I will keep the page in its current form until the issue is resolved. Hopefully the article can remain. If there is any additional evidence you require in order to keep the page intact, please discuss them. Thank you. Vuzor (talk) 10:12, 7 May 2013 (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.