Talk:The Republic Tigers/Archive 1

I'd like to move that this discussion page be archived, so a clean discussion page can replace it. I'd do it myself but I'm not sure how. Any help is appreciated. I'd like to do this because I believe the article's significance is now pretty much incontestable as the band has signed to a major label, has an official EP release (with a full length release being mastered as we speak), and has appeared on television. I think the content of the current discussion page is a blemish for the article and is unnecessary. Thanks! Mrmb6b02 (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The Republic Tigers entry in the Wikipedia online encyclopedia should not be removed. Currently, the group's significance resides in the fact that Kenneth Jankowski is a prominent member. Mr. Jankowski is a former part of The Golden Republic (of Astralwerks records), a band once popular in European rock music. Fans of The Golden Republic - and music fans in general - will likely be interested to know the future directions and fates of the band members. Moreover, the fact that the presence of other artists on the Wikipedia site who are no more well known goes uncontested (e.g. Ultra Sonic Edukators, whose site actually references The Republic Tigers as an important act with which they have played; and others), requires that this page remain - for fairness' sake (note: fairness is certainly not a trivial notion. The concept has been recognized repeatedly by institutions of government and law. Consider the Fairness Doctrine in broadcasting. Of course, Wikipedia is not a government organization and the moderators are free to judge content as unimportant by any criteria they wish. However, such rulings as the Fairness Doctrine set a precedent for all organizations seeking to present a comprehensive and balanced body of knowledge on any subject).

Thank you for your time, and your consideration in this matter.

Sorry, there is no inherent "right to fairness" here and we don't work on precedent... especially precedents that don't apply.--Isotope23 18:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD

I'm declining to delete this as a speedy delete because there is an assertion of notability. I've listed it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion instead.--Isotope23 18:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I thank you for giving this entry a chance, rather than promptly removing it without warning. As a note, I understand the fairness precedent cited is not applicable to this case. I meant it only as an example of a more broad concept, one which I believe should govern all sources of information wishing to be regarded as credible by any standard of measurement. In the past, I have been pleased with the coverage of material represented on Wikipedia. I hope that will not change in the future. I do not say this out of anger or frustration. I say this out of a desire to see one of my favorite online references continue to grow.

Again, thank you. This site is a terrific source of information for me, and I hope you will not percieve me as uncooperative or as a pest. I am merely stating my opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrmb6b02 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

You are free to state your opinion. I'm just saying that trying to argue that this article should be kept based on external criteria is probably not going to be a very persuasive argument. I've left a message on your userpage so you can see the Wikipedia criteria relevant to musical acts.--Isotope23 19:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)