- Consequence of Sound (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
To whom it may concern,
I sincerely believe that the recent deletion of the Consequence of Sound Wikipedia page was unwarranted for a number of reasons.
First and foremost, this has been an on going issue for several months, with the most recent conclusion coming in June when, after a fruitful and professional discussion, it was decided that this page exhibited the necessary criteria to remain.
However, recently, actually rather instantaneously, the delete debate was reopened... and before someone could argue otherwise, the page was deleted.
The reasonings given were the following:
1. "Not enough to get over notability guidelines." - One hammer) 15:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. " Totally non-notable, no reliable third-party sources, not owned by a notable company, doesn't have writers who have been published elsewhere reliable, doesn't even have a submissions guideline page." - Rafablu88 06:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would now like to take a moment to respond to each of these charges.
As it relates to the issue of notability, the online publication in question has been referenced by the following publications: New York Magazine, MTV.com, USA Today, Filter Magazine, Chicago-Sun Times, The Huffington Post, Time Out Chicago, Austin360.com, Glide Magazine, Comedy Central Insider, BBC.co.uk. Before the article was deleted, several of these mentions were included in references.
Furthermore, the online publication in question was deemed "best music blog" by WNEW of CBS RADIO. It also served as the official "bloggers" of the Lollapalooza 2008.
Now, on to the issue of not being owned by a notable company. Well, if that's the basis for deletion, then you have numerous other pages you better start deleting.
The editor writers that the online publication in question "doesn't have writers who have been published elsewhere reliable." That is simply, 100% inaccurate and if the editor who wrote those comments actually took the time to do the research, he/she would know that. Staff members who write for the online publication in question have also seen their work published in Entertainment Weekly, CBS.com, Time Out New York, and the Toronto Star among others.
Finally, as it relates to the online publication in question not having submissions guidelines, may I point you here, here and here.
I hope you strongly reconsider the deletion because from my estimation, I have answered all of your questions. 71.178.191.137 (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To help explain "First and foremost, this has been an on going issue for several months, with the most recent conclusion coming in June when, after a fruitful and professional discussion, it was decided that this page exhibited the necessary criteria to remain." to non-admins here is a timeline of the article:
- I can no find any evidence for "after a fruitful and professional discussion, it was decided that this page exhibited the necessary criteria to remain", the deleted talk page of the article had a short discussion with the AfD nominator who obviously didn't agree the article is notable. BJTalk 01:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. As a rule, blogs are not reliable, and Wikipedia doesn't want them. Here, you are attempting to assert that this blog is notable. You provide one, non-blog, almost good, supporting reference http://www.wnew.com/2008/07/best-music-bl-1.html. What is extremely unfortunate for your case is that that reference, which would normally be judged independent, doesn't contain enough independent commentary on the subject. All it contains as independent commentary is "Best Music Blogs: Consequence of Sound [(title)], [is one of] the best music blogs on the Internet." By having all of the rest of the article be a compilation of quotation from the creators, wnew.com have rendered the article clearly "non-independent" and of no value towards meeting our notability criteria WP:N or WP:WEB. wnew.com did not, in the end, review the website. To demonstrate sufficient notability to our threshold, you have to include reliable (not blog) sourced commentary about the website. Someone, not the creators, or employees, has to have said something about the site. Critical commentary is best. Fannish adoration is unimpressive. Promotional commentary, sounding like a paid infomercial, will count against it. Support Userfying to a subpage of an editor with a track record of productive contributions. Such sources as required probably exist if it is true that this is one of the Best Music Blogs. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 08:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There was this. Which I chose not to respond to. BJTalk 08:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. Deletion review is a forum to establish whether deletion process has been properly followed. It is not a location for discussions properly made at an AFD discussion to be rehashed and reopened. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Request: Can the talk page of the article be restored for this DRV? — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. BJTalk 08:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. I don't see any indication that the deletion process was not followed or that data has been provided which was not available to the participating editors. The talk page makes mention of Chicago Sun-Times, OC Weekly and CBS Radio references but I'm unable to locate these resources. If links to these could be provided and proved to be substantive and independent of subject I would consider revising this opinion. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 08:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore and relist: I think the information available to us now casts the subject of the article in a better light than was immediately available to the delete !voters in the AfD. We now have a well-sourced case that the weblog is influential amongst opinion leaders in the music industry, and adequate sourcing to flesh out an article; WP:WEB#1 should be reevaluted in the light that the weblog is engaging in music-industry journalism. SmokeyJoe's suggestion of userfying to a turn-around master would be even better, in terms of likelihood of getting the article into acceptable shape, if we could only find such a person... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chalst (talk • contribs)
- Weak endorse – looks like procedure was followed with some sort of rough consensus (after one full relist, of course). The IP claims that coverage is everywhere but does not show that. Perhaps someone can take the article off the user's hands here and see what can be done in the userspace (after all I did contest the prod on the notion that the sources given may have established some notability there). MuZemike 02:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
