Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Protomen (second nomination)

can we do something about the votes that are obviously either sent here from somewhere else, or are sock puppets (not sure, not accusing)... it just seems that most of the keep votes are by brand new users that registered today only to vote, and have made no other contribution... IMHO, it seems a little loaded... - Adolphus79 19:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. Closing admins usually take that into account. Wickethewok 19:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe just because I (and possibly others) are new to editing does not mean our opinion as Wiki readers should be discounted. I do not believe that the amount you contribute, while certainly respectable and commendable, should in any shape or form effect either the value of your opinion or the facts you provide. This article is simply the first time I've decided to give Wiki a try as an editor (and I now that I've gotten my feet wet, I will probably continue to do so). I must also ask that those that vote deletion please include some information so we can discuss, linking to the notable article does not allow for discussion and does not explain your reasoning. It seems like many are simply linking there without reading the arguments on both sides as I personally believe the band has matched more than one of those criteria. As said numerous times, this is not a vote so feel free to discuss. Draxis 14:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't mean that they'll be discounted -- it only says that during a vote for deletion, when a variety of new editors show up and only participate in the discussion, they views should be treated with suspicion, for two reasons:

Generally, newer editors are less aware of what's valid encyclopaedic content and what ain't.
Legitimate first time users who's first edit is on a vote for deletion are so rare that their existence may be almost entirely discounted. Lord Rutherford once said Never bet against anything in science at odds worse than about ten to the twelfth to one against. - I imagine comparable odds exist for multiple new users making their first edit on a vote for deletion. WilyD 15:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, I guess I defy odds? I have no inclination to argue my validity let alone my existence. However, I have read much of the material available on wiki in relation to the guidelines (among general article surfing on a daily basis). With Nintendo Power, Mix Magazine, radio broadcasts, internet news and general publicity, my opinion stands - and if you look at the page, theres alot of rational reasons people want to keep this article. But so far on the other end of the spectrum, I've seen only links to WP:MUSIC and personalized attacks on new Wiki editors. What would you like us to do to validate our persona as a unique individual that is here to bring rational, honest opinions, facts, and thought to Wiki and in particular, this discussion on an article we feel should remain as Wiki readers? Also note that I ask this question in all seriousness and without sarcasm. I am not upset, I do completely understand where you are coming from. On the other end of the spectrum however, I would like to know what myself and others need to do to validate our voices and be heard like everyone else without causing any additional tention. Draxis 15:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about it too much - I had my existence questioned on the first article I nominated for deletion, and it was suggested I must live in a parallel universe. ;) Smashing articles on bands that are totally unworthy of articles is common procedure on wikipedia - there are several a day, because of vanity and self-promotion. The link to WP:MUSIC is used because the argument is already laid out - no point in saying This is a nothing band unworthy of an encyclopaedia twenty times a day. Again, if you'll read what's been said, you'll notice there haven't been personalised attacks - it's been said that many of the contributers reek of sock-puppetry or recruitment, that at the very least the administrators should note this when deleting or keeping - which they should. In the end, if your arguments are good they'll win out, and if not they won't - there's very little value to "status" when there's serious contestedness about an article - I wouldn't worry about it too much. WilyD 16:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to make a quick note, I was unfamiliar with how to edit on Wiki. It is not something I had ever really attempted to do (moreso out of nervousness of doing something improperly). I was aware of this article being created as a few of us were contributing some ideas for it. I was following the articles growth and throwing my two cents in hince my interest in the article. As were a few other of the new Wiki people. Thus obviously is where my interest in this articles deletion came from, but I honestly feel that it has passed at least some of the guidelines layed out by WP:MUSIC. As per after this debate ends, I will likely stick around as an editor on Wiki simply because this has sparked alot of thought, interest, and creativity - and that my friends, is good stuff. Draxis 18:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On New Editors and Notability

I didn't say anything about all the new editor's votes... there may be exceptions... but if you look at some of the editors that voted keep, they have no edits anywhere else on Wikipedia... I do not believe someone should be judged just by their edit count (hell, look at me, 3000+ edits now, and still a noob)... I just think it's slightly suspicious that this went up for deletion, and within the next couple days several people "just happened" to register, and "just happened" upon this article's deletion page...

If you were registered before this artcile was tagged AfD, and you are making other edits to Wikipedia other than just arguing to keep this article, then you are not part of this group... if you just registered since this article went up for AfD, and your only edits are to this page, you are one of the suspicious ones... not that my opinion is worth more than the pixels it is drawn with, but as the old saying goes, "If it quacks like a duck..."

Furthermore, this is not an arguement about how many people from how far away know about the band, or what their plans may be in the future... this should be a straight-forward vote as to whether this band does or does not currently qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia based on the standards at WP:MUSIC...

P.S. my existance has been questioned several times, a number of editors have thought that I was a bot... ;)

- Have fun, and happy editing... - Adolphus79 16:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message Adolphus79. I do have my first question for you, however. Unlike the discussion page here, I was attempting to respond to you via our user talk channels and noticed I could not edit yours. I found no sign of a button to do so, oddly enough (the edit this page at the top even vanished). I can view source, but the page for some reason is "protected". Should I just respond to you in my own talk box? Draxis 19:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

aye... my talk is protected currently from anons and new editors due to my counter vandalism work... lots of people hate me... LOL - Adolphus79 19:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Argument Ever Presented

I must say, this was not a very good first time Wiki editor experience. In my opinion, as someone said to me in regards to this place once before, it's really the polar opposite of the justice system. Guilty until proven innocent? I believe we established at least gray area of notability, but as it was some of you who wanted this article deleted so badly it should have been you whom provided valid arguments. None, not one, were left. The Mix Article was attacked a few times, but beyond that NO valid argument or explanation was left in regards to the reason WHY it's not notable per the resources we provided. I would be a bit more understanding had this been a two-sided debate, but it wasn't. It was a half-debate and the other side voting. I was informed this wasn't a vote, though now I have to wonder. I'm not angry because we lost the article, I'm much more angry that the people that participate in this would be so eager to destroy. I was really looking forward to getting to write a few articles and mark my place on the Wikimap, but I suspect at this point most of my interests would simply be deleted. Draxis 13:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe you should have more respect for the opinions of those who disagree with you. It is my opinion, and the opinion of the other delete voters, that a five-paragraph blurb and a page in Nintendo Power about a band that sings about Nintendo games cannot be considered "featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media." Feature says "feature journalism provides extended articles or items about events, persons or circumstances." A page is not "featured." For an example of a feature, go to [1], click on the cover of the latest issue, and see "Featured articles." I also don't consider them reliable or reputable in the field of music. Their opinions of musical notability are about as relevant to me as their opinions on quantum theory.
- Similarly, a 100 watt radio station does not count as "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network," and WP:MUSIC specifically says that shoutouts in blogs are not a sufficient assertion of notability. I don't think you should just take your ball and go home; rather, please stick around Wikipedia and learn how things work here. You failed to provide valid arguments, as none of the evidence presented conforms to the standards of notability set forth in WP:MUSIC. That's fine, since you're unfamiliar with Wikipedia and the standards of notability, but please don't act like you and the couple of other people who voted keep are the only ones who know what you're doing. TomTheHand 13:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know as an anonymous that my word has no say in the matter but truth be told this did seem kind of railroaded. I mean we have plenty of less notable articles in the wiki that are still here and yet no one says a word to wise about their existence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.213.182 (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]