Talk:Marty Munsch

Untitled

• The comments immediately below are garbled due to the repeated deletion of earlier critical comments by anon IP's. See history. Wwwhatsup (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

All factual and legit

All factual and legit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.213.90 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

http://photos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v2622/201/117/1539212199/n1539212199_30212387_8195021.jpg

I ran a cleanup. So many people added. I saw the Movie and bought both DVD's of punks not dead the movie as well as ALL GROWN UP THE MOVIE. It was worth the historical effort of this guys life as a living hell nobody would wish on a an enemy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by

somone help it would be appreciated 18:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.213.46 (talk • contribs)

Invitation to edit or discuss

I created a discussion subpage on my talk page User_talk:Xblkx/Marty_Munsch to discuss improvements to this article that I had proposed on 26-Feb-2009 that were simply deleted as vandalism by a user with a dynamic IP address. I am not an experienced editor, so I invite the authors and editors of this article who are more familiar with the subject than I am to respond, discuss, and improve the article and to remove the content that does not meet Wikipedia standards which SQGibbon has invested hours in evaluating. Please do not simply delete the tags challenging the content that does not meet those standards. Xblkx (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I've finished uploading all my research to the subpage. So everyone interested please come take a look and comment, challenge, whatever. SQGibbon (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

New Version

I've copied my heavily edited version over here to be the new one. See the discussion here for the reasoning. Now that we have a clean and decently well-sourced version, adding more information should be easier to track and verify. SQGibbon (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Good job. We'll see. I'll post another note on Marty's page about not deleting talk comments. It would seem according to the below that he is abdicating involvement. So we'll just have to keep the anon's in check. Wwwhatsup (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. we now see Marty aka SOCal9045, having professed indifference as below, attempting to revive the earlier version. diff. Wwwhatsup (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Dialog between Pxc3580 and SOcal9045

• Neither signed their comments. SoCal deleted Pxc's comments in responding. Reconstructed and moved from top of page.. Wwwhatsup (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Go somewhere else to post your resume Mr. Munsch

Honestly, this is just a vanity page and it is just sad.

Stange this user does not exist.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pxc3580 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Interestingly enough, I have barely recognized this wiko site and it's wacko's untill a few months ago, Sad as it may be.

I would like to go out of my way and THANK whomever may have contributed to my information no matter how it may be posted. I don't have the time to waste on a encyclopedia that is based upon public consensus.

Preceding unsigned comment added by SOcal9045 (talk • contribs)

The two of you. Please feel free to air your differences, but they should be confined to the content of the article. Please 1) do not delete other people's comments, and 2) sign your comments with 4 tildes. Wwwhatsup (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

To make an additional clarification, "public consensus" and "encyclopedic" are unrelated terms applied to content for differing reasons. Encyclopedic is a standard applied to content. Public consensus is used to reconcile disputes for included content and whether it meets the standards of this website. Xblkx (talk) 04:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Notable credits

I believe this section should also be knocked out. None of the credits in there are particularly notable. I realize this begs the question if Marty Munsch himself is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. I'm willing to let that go, but not if anon IPs continue to add non-notable credits to the list. Wwwhatsup (talk) 22:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's tricky. I never felt these sources were particularly good but they were the best left from the previous version of the article. The Encyclopedia of Punk might be fine but then I don't have a copy so I don't know what it says about Munsch. The films are suspect as well though the "Punk's Not Dead" was on TV (Fuse channel) but then I don't think Munsch was actually in that film as he only contributed video for it. And is the Sugar Buzz magazine even available in print form? So yes, there are problems. That said I'm fine with the article being in Wikipedia but would have a difficult time arguing against a PROD. At least now it's easy to keep the article free from any more non-notable additions and if something good does ever come along then there will be plenty of space to add it in. SQGibbon (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. If it was footage and not a personal appearance I wouldn't describe that as notable. I don't see him listed here. That documentary had dozens of sources, and while everybody is thanked nobody gets a specific credit IIRC.

In fairness, the notable credits idea was my suggestion, as a solution to the endless addition of trivial credits. I thought there'd be one or two worth keeping. Producing records by relatively obscure punk bands doesn't cut it, neither do the minor engineering and mastering roles that were also listed. Where MM is notable I guess is for his role as an all round mover on the NJ punk scene, including owning Punk Rock records, and production work - but in a general way, not with a long list of credits. Wwwhatsup (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore I believe the correct solution, as per WP:AUTO is for MM to list all the credits he wants on his own site, which can be then be accessed via a ref/external link here. Wwwhatsup (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

agreed. would remove all credits and would even remove the info box. just leave it to the opening sentance and have a link to his homepage. would also look at Punk Rock records page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.172.8.13 (talk) 17:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not quite how I read WP:AUTO. If I'm reading the same section as you are referencing it states that biographical information from a personal website can be used for general biographical information (with certain caveats). What I get from this is that if Marty were to put some biographical information at his website we might be able to use some of that (in a neutral and non-contentious manner) to flesh out aspects of this article. That would be helpful. The "notable credits" while not terribly notable I think work fine to establish a general sense of notability (which probably doesn't strictly adhere to WP policy but is hopefully good enough). In the end I think the article is fine. It could use some fleshing out particularly in the biographical area but otherwise it's probably as good as it can get based on the sources available. SQGibbon (talk) 06:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I take the points of both comments above. But I believe that the only thing really bad is that the two record credits given are kind of arbitrary. It is the whole body of work in terms of New Jersey punk rock that can be construed as notable, but not any individual piece. Thus I would be very happy if it could read something like "Produced/engineered many records for bands including (2 or 3 names). - and a ref go to some list - similar to the one excised here - on his website. While individual credits might be questionable, the statement is pretty much assurely proven. As far as the infobox goes, I have no problem with it - if he's notable then let it be! The pic could need an WP:OTRS, though. Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you're saying now and I agree. I think keeping some of the references that are in the article now at least establishes some kind of secondary source confirmation (so that future readers won't think the article is just a link to a vanity site). Which is not to say that you advocated removing all of them but I just wanted to be clear on that point. SQGibbon (talk) 07:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the suggestion made by 192.172.8.13, I completely agree that Punk Rock Records article requires an evaluation. I have been meaning to do this but unable to find the time. If anything is relevant there, my opinion is that it belongs merged into this article. Punk Rock Records is just a corporate identity of the subject of this article and not notable apart from that. Back to the original discussion, we have a limited sample set for determining consensus whether this subject is notable. There are lot more editors to the history of this article than people participating in that discussion (not unexpected, considering that IP addresses are dynamically assigned). For the time being, like those of us discussing this, I tend to accept it and err on the side of "as good as it can get based on the sources available." That's acceptable to me. I looked at the sources again and thought about them, and for example, the choice of using US Chaos and the movie contributions as one of the (2 or 3 names) produced/engineered by the subject here; I think this is one of the few subjects referenced that could or do have a reliably sourced, relatively unchallengeable article of its own. I tend to accept those references (and this is admittedly subjective) unless they are challenged. If others in the "credits" feel they are relevant, they can create and source their own articles too. As for the image, I looked at its history, and I see no information at all indicating it is in the public domain other than a declaration by a user who no longer exists. I have seen and edited articles about bands who have actually provided their own publicity and promo photos with release permission, and had them challenged and removed by bots and that I can't prevent or dispute. I do not know what the process is for challenging images or certifying that they are released to the public domain, but I agree. The user who created it and certified it as "own work" and released it no longer exists (how does that occur?). I don't know if it matters. If this should or can be questioned, it is not in my area of expertise. But personally, for the effort we've done to clean this up as an improvement to Wikipedia, I'd rather have a stub-class article here that's factual, non-vanity site and sourced than a deleted article later re-created copied in 4 minutes from someone's PC and have to start all over again with this in a year or two. There are articles about internationally-known subjects that I have neglected improving just to extricate this garbage from Wikipedia, simply because I believe the overall quality of this great resource is better served with the former activity. Xblkx (talk) 05:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There is the established WP:CONSENT process for verifying the status of files. If the status can't be verified the file should be deleted. I would suggest you clean up Punk Rock Records and then propose a merge if you feel one is merited. Wwwhatsup (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Then let's get to it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.153.3 (talk) 01:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Marty Munsch

A tag has been placed on Marty Munsch, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Music

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. 68.193.213.46 (talk) 06:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• This tag has been reverted as vandalism diff. Wwwhatsup (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Marty Munsch and Punk Rock Records

Now that the Punk Rock Records article has been trimmed down to something based on reliable sources it's probably time to merge the articles. Anyone have an opinion about which article should be the main one (assuming they should be merged)? SQGibbon (talk) 06:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I would say merge MM into PRR. I think we can speculate that it is MM himself who has been behind the recent anon attempts to delete the MM article, and that the product is of more interest. Wwwhatsup (talk) 02:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree on all counts. We can wait a few days but I doubt anyone is going to take notice of this so whenever one of us feels the urge we should make the merge. I think some of the notable (so-called) achievements listed on this page were probably done separate from PRR and would need to be listed that way. SQGibbon (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem there. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)