Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 December 15: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 14:54, 18 December 2023

< 2023 December 14

Deletion review archives: 2023 December

2023 December 16 >

15 December 2023

Steve Shapiro

Requesting undeletion to add new citations and continue editing the article to remove any biographical content disputed as promotion. Complete deletion removed the subject from this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vibraphonists This is inconsistent with other such lists (see book “Masters of the Vibes” in references).

Editors voting for deletion did not seem to do substantial research on the specific topic (vibraphone and its musical sub-genre). Arguments regarding notability are arbitrary and inconsistent based upon other similar entries that remain undeleted, particularly since the original article meets all of the following criteria: - Multiple articles covering the music or a tour - Albums or singles in the official charts - Prominence within a certain genre or subculture - Award or competition wins or nominations - The music featured in another form of media, eg. TV shows, movies, games - Worked with other famous figures - Performed at major festivals or well-known venues

Wiki editors failed to discover any of these 26 new citations:

Original citations:

"Arranging Contemporary Cover Songs for Vibraphone"; by Steve Shapiro; Percussive Notes, Percussive Arts Society, Fall 2020. https://www.pas.org/publications/percussive-notes
Interview and artist profile included in the publication, "Masters Of The Vibes"; by Anthony Smith; Marimba Productions / Perfect Paperbacks, 2017. https://www.amazon.com/Masters-Vibes-Anthony-Smith/dp/0999068504. also https://www.mostlymarimba.com/product/masters-of-the-vibes-by-anthony-smith/ Dexter515251 (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure as Delete. The close was the correct close, not an error by the closer. The appellant appears to be saying that there was an error by the community, which is requesting that DRV be AFD Round 2. I have not reviewed the URL Dump, which is a case of reference bombing DRV, but I can see that some of the references are unreliable sources. If the appellant wants to submit a new draft for review, they should provide three good-quality references, and should also make a conflict of interest disclosure. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Nothing wrong with the close, but this is a new information DRV. Those are way too many sources to expect us to go through - the essay WP:THREE suggests demonstrating the best three for notability - but honestly, I did look through almost all of them and I didn't see anything which would make me think a mistake was made by the participants. While there's a number of links on him, apart from one or two reviews from the same potentially reliable site, there's at least some problem with the vast majority of the sources, mostly reliability or independence. SportingFlyer T·C 00:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dexter515251, can you please advise what (if) any relationship you have with the subject of the article, or alternatively if you have been paid to edit relating to this article. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's their own page per their talk page. 94rain ^Talk 04:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Just trying to save the entry from deletion, while trying to avoid COI. Seems impossible. References deemed as unreliable are the same as most others on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vibraphonists Dexter515251 (talk) 05:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is what tends to be known as a what about X argument. There are millions of articles on Wikipedia and it's volunteer effort, so it takes time to get to things, maybe some of the other articles will also get deleted, or maybe someone will research them more and find better references, or maybe there are already better references as well as the weak ones, in the end each article has to stand on it's own merits, and one of the articles has to be the "first" to be subject to scrutiny. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This sounds like it belongs in WP:REFUND. Owen× ☎ 18:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 57: / Line 57: @@
 *:It's their {{tq|own page}} per their [[User_talk:Dexter515251|talk page]]. <span style="text-shadow:0 1px 5px #99FFFF">[[User:94rain|<span style="color:#6495ED">94rain</span>]] [[User_talk:94rain|<sup style="color:gold">'''Talk'''</sup>]] </span> 04:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 *::Indeed. Just trying to save the entry from deletion, while trying to avoid COI. Seems impossible. References deemed as unreliable are the same as most others on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vibraphonists [[User:Dexter515251|Dexter515251]] ([[User talk:Dexter515251|talk]]) 05:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
+*::: That is what tends to be known as a [[WP:WAX|what about X]] argument. There are millions of articles on Wikipedia and it's volunteer effort, so it takes time to get to things, maybe some of the other articles will also get deleted, or maybe someone will research them more and find better references, or maybe there are already better references as well as the weak ones, in the end each article has to stand on it's own merits, and one of the articles has to be the "first" to be subject to scrutiny. --[[Special:Contributions/81.100.164.154|81.100.164.154]] ([[User talk:81.100.164.154|talk]]) 14:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 *'''Endorse'''. This sounds like it belongs in [[WP:REFUND]]. [[User:OwenX|Owen&times;]] [[User talk:OwenX|<big>&#9742;</big>]] 18:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)