Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-C

< Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion‎ | Proposal

3-C (unremarkable bands) edit

"An article about a musician or music group that does not explicitly state fulfillment of at least one of the criteria from WP:MUSIC, or assert facts which obviously imply fulfillment of at least one of those criteria. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to VFD instead" should be added to the criteria for speedy deletion.
  • This is a new proposal, since many people have said that proposal 3-B was still critically flawed in not including all the WP:MUSIC criteria directly.
  • The point of this proposal is that minor garage bands and high school music groups frequently create articles about themselves, despite them having no fame whatsoever. Such articles tend to receive unanimous delete-votes on VFD.
  • It is possible (though highly unlikely) that a stub article is written about a famous musician, without the article asserting any of the WP:MUSIC music criteria. However, it is likely that such a stub will be improved rather than deleted by well-meaning admins or RC patrollers. Also, if it happens to be deleted, it can easily be recreated with actual content.
  • Because this proposal was added at a later moment, it will close at 22:44, July 19.

Voting is now closed

This is a reworded version of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-B, in an attempt to meet important concerns expressed there. If you have voted there, please vote here as well.

Votes edit

Support edit

  1. I supports thiss, as I created it. It addresses all the issues I had with 3-b. DES 5 July 2005 21:47 (UTC)
  2. Support, for the same reasons I supported the other versions, but noting that this is an improvement over both. -- BD2412 talk July 6, 2005 00:50 (UTC)
  3. Support — this is how the criterion ought to have been in the first place. I'll still support the other two too to (!) make sure we get something.-Splash 6 July 2005 15:23 (UTC)
  4. Support. --FCYTravis 6 July 2005 01:33 (UTC)
  5. Support. Too many garage bands lately. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 6 July 2005 02:13 (UTC)
  6. Support. Golbez July 6, 2005 02:16 (UTC)
  7. Support. This should not be controversial at all. Jayjg (talk) 6 July 2005 02:25 (UTC)
  8. Dragons flight July 6, 2005 02:47 (UTC)
  9. Support. Econrad 6 July 2005 03:04 (UTC)
  10. Support. Making band vanity speediable just makes sense. Bands are simply not inherently notable. If you play an instrument, and get together a few friends who also play instruments, that in itself doesn't imply any more notability than the simple fact that you exist. There is obviously strong support for the WP:MUSIC guidelines, but the other proposals were a little too instruction-creepy for my tastes. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] July 6, 2005 03:31 (UTC)
  11. — Phil Welch 6 July 2005 04:10 (UTC)
  12. Cryptic (talk) 6 July 2005 04:23 (UTC)
  13. Support like the other two versions. Let's put it through the test run.Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions July 6, 2005 04:28 (UTC)
  14. Xoloz 6 July 2005 04:45 (UTC)
  15. Support. I support WP:MUSIC, and I agree that articles which don't assert (or clearly imply) that a band meets at least one WP:MUSIC criterion are worthy of being speedily deleted. --Metropolitan90 July 6, 2005 04:49 (UTC)
  16. Support. R. S. Shaw 6 July 2005 04:56 (UTC)
  17. Support like the other two versions, although this one is less ambiguous. Alphax τεχ 6 July 2005 04:58 (UTC)
  18. Support -- Fuzheado | Talk 6 July 2005 05:14 (UTC)
  19. Support. This is clearer and more objective than the other versions. — Gwalla | Talk 6 July 2005 05:21 (UTC)
  20. Mononoke 6 July 2005 05:42 (UTC)
  21. Still probably too subjective, but I think it is much better than the other proposals and it will do more good than harm. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 6 July 2005 05:59 (UTC)
  22. Support, though we probably need to make WP:MUSIC policy if we're going to explicitly rely on it. --G Rutter 6 July 2005 07:37 (UTC)
  23. Conditional. WP:MUSIC must be policy for this to be valid. —Theo (Talk) 6 July 2005 08:18 (UTC)
  24. Support Stewart Adcock 6 July 2005 08:29 (UTC)
  25. Support. The best of the three; its vagueness is both an advantage and a danger, but I think that in practice it should work well. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 6 July 2005 09:19 (UTC)
  26. Support, excellent wording. Radiant_>|< July 6, 2005 09:36 (UTC)
  27. Support, clear and comprehensive. I expect this criterion to work fine if used with common sense. Sietse 6 July 2005 10:28 (UTC)
  28. — Trilobite (Talk) 6 July 2005 10:41 (UTC)
  29. Acegikmo1 6 July 2005 12:04 (UTC)
  30. Support. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 6 July 2005 13:03 (UTC)
  31. Yes, yes and yes. The admins know as well as any who vote on Vfd what nonsense these can be. --A D Monroe III 6 July 2005 13:25 (UTC)
  32. ➥the Epopt 6 July 2005 13:29 (UTC)
  33. Support - this one actually makes sense. :-) James F. (talk) 6 July 2005 14:26 (UTC)
  34. I supported the other ones, and I'll support this one. Vast improvement, too. Hermione1980 6 July 2005 15:17 (UTC)
  35. bands have fat chance to improve their notability in time. But wikipedia is not vehicle for this. mikka (t) 6 July 2005 15:18 (UTC)
  36. Denni☯ 2005 July 6 18:55 (UTC)
  37. Finally, simple wording for this. 6 July 2005 19:42 (UTC)
  38. Carnildo 6 July 2005 22:04 (UTC)
  39. Support. ral315 July 7, 2005 05:21 (UTC)
  40. Support This is a good solution. Tobycat 7 July 2005 08:04 (UTC)
  41. Support. -- Ricky81682 (talk) July 7, 2005 08:05 (UTC)
  42. Support. -- Aaron Hill July 7, 2005 09:07 (UTC)
  43. Support. <>Who?¿? 7 July 2005 16:27 (UTC)
  44. Support we need a CSD for bands!  Grue  7 July 2005 20:32 (UTC)# Support drini ☎ 7 July 2005 20:55 (UTC)
  45. Support, will take a big load off VFD. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 8 July 2005 06:52 (UTC)
  46. Support. About time. Kaibabsquirrel 8 July 2005 07:35 (UTC)
  47. Support Band vanity is annoying, and the requirement to comply with WP:MUSIC makes this unlikely to be abused.Klonimus 8 July 2005 08:43 (UTC)
  48. Merovingian (t) (c) July 8, 2005 09:12 (UTC)
  49. strong support. band vanity is a huge problem, and this is to the point. Brighterorange 8 July 2005 20:56 (UTC)
  50. support --Jiang 9 July 2005 09:00 (UTC)
  51. Band vanity wastes too much of our time This link is Broken 9 July 2005 14:43 (UTC)
  52. I support using this, but only in the most obvious cases, and only if the proposal to restrict speedy deletion of recreated deleted material passes. I'd say give it a test run. --Idont Havaname 19:51, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Strong support. WP:MUSIC guidelines are objective enough for our admins to handle. TheCoffee 21:12, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. The inclusion of WP:MUSIC guideline adds some objectivity to the process, and garage band cruft is a major problem. RoySmith 13:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Peter Isotalo 17:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Non-notable bands are one of the biggest time wasters (and biggest attractors of sockpuppets) on vfd and almost all of them are unanimously deleted. Gamaliel 17:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. We're hardly setting the bar at a ridiculous height. WP:MUSIC has good criteria, and any band that doesn't meet even one of those is not worthy of inclusion. --Canderson7 18:23, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  58. Support Fornadan (t) 19:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. JeremyA 20:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. --Allen3 talk 21:45, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  61. Support.-gadfium 00:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support -- nyenyec ☎ 00:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support -- I see this a lot. --Mysidia 12:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Dsmdgold 14:18, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  65. Johnleemk | Talk 14:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  66. MarkSweep 01:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Shanes 05:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support WP:MUSIC covers all the bases Dan100 (Talk) 08:41, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  69. Wholeheartedly Support, great idea, yes yes yes! All the reasons above. Of all the pages I've reluctantly put on Vfd instead of Speedy, bands were the vast majority. GarrettTalk 12:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. Way too many articles about garage bands. JuntungWu 14:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 15:30, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  72. Support. WP:MUSIC sets a very low and rather objective bar for inclusion, and will get rid of a lot of boooring vanity, but I agree with G Rutter that we probably need to make it policy if we're going to explicitly rely on it. / Alarm 17:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. Pavel Vozenilek 19:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. IanManka 05:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Vegaswikian 05:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Neutralitytalk 11:56, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  77. Support EdwinHJ | Talk 19:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. EvilPhoenix talk 01:17, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  79. Support--Porturology 02:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  80. There's always WP:VfU for the inevitable errors that will creep in. We need something to increase the throughput of VfD; better to fix a few errors in a quick system than use a slow, expensive (in time/energy) system. Noel (talk) 01:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support if no other reason than it will set down firm policy that boosts the signal to noise ratio Casito⇝Talk 02:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Provides verifiable reason for sending these bands for CSD. Capitalistroadster 06:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  83. support --EnSamulili 10:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support Gtabary 23:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support - Tεxτurε 14:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose edit

  1. No. Bad precedent to put control of the criteria on a WikiProject page which is itself not policy. Again, the proposers are confusing inclusion guidelines with speedy deletion criteria. If music group articles are so much a problem, develop a specialized deletion process for them. Speedy deletion must remain as unambiguous as possible. -- Netoholic @ 6 July 2005 06:07 (UTC)
  2. Newbies often just describe what bands are, especially when they are filling in red links. They know a band is significant and they are trying to add something that wikipedia is missing. We owe it to them at least to google the thing. Kappa 6 July 2005 08:53 (UTC)
  3. Agree with Net and Kappa. This is VFD, not CSD. - David Gerard 6 July 2005 10:15 (UTC)
  4. No. I agree with Netoholic and Kappa and I would also like to point out that WP:MUSIC implies sufficient and not neccesary criteria for inclusion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 6 July 2005 10:44 (UTC)
  5. Unreasonably raises the bar for a stub; unreasonably removes an entire class of article from consideration on the best discussion forum we have--VfD. We should probably be expanding VfD, not trying to stifle it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 6 July 2005 11:05 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Wikiprojects are not policy pages. Can assume support if a separate policy page on music is established. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) July 6, 2005 12:33 (UTC)
  7. Far better than 3, 3-A or 3-B. But I must agree with Netoholic, Kappa and Sjakkalle. This is not the right forum to turn WP:MUSIC into policy. Pburka 6 July 2005 12:37 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Send them to VfD. Thryduulf 6 July 2005 13:06 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Let's discuss WP:MUSIC separately first. Passing this would have the improper effect of "highjack promotion" of WP:MUSIC. Unfocused 6 July 2005 13:51 (UTC)
  10. As per Sjakkalle. Meelar (talk) July 6, 2005 13:57 (UTC)
  11. Netoholic and Sjakkalle are talking sense. --Laura Scudder | Talk 6 July 2005 14:12 (UTC)
  12. This is better than 3-A or 3-B. However, I oppose as per Netoholic. — Bcat (talk | email) 6 July 2005 14:34 (UTC)
  13. Oppose per Netoholic. I still think checking the notability requirements of WP:MUSIC requires a VfD, and furthermore, a speedy delete (in order to have a good chance of surviving a VfU) should only follow a policy, not a Wikiproject guideline. It's okay for VfD voters to use it as reasoning, because consensus is important for guidelines (not policies). --Deathphoenix 6 July 2005 14:38 (UTC)
    • Note that, per this proposal, checking the requirements would still be the province of VFD. An article on a band that doesn't as much as imply meeting them is the only thing that would be speedily deletable. Radiant_>|< July 7, 2005 12:50 (UTC)
  14. --ArmadniGeneral 6 July 2005 15:58 (UTC)
  15. This is better than 3A or 3B, but I still think that checking whether someone meets WP:MUSIC requires a VfD, and I agree with some other comments above. JYolkowski // talk 6 July 2005 20:56 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. Not appropriate criteria for deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 6 21:20 (UTC)
  17. Oppose for the same reasons as I cited on 3B. I also agree with Netoholic. David | Talk 6 July 2005 21:51 (UTC)
  18. Oppose per Netoholic and Sjakkalle Nohat 7 July 2005 02:08 (UTC)
  19. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 7 July 2005 02:38 (UTC)
  20. Oppose. See comments. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 7 July 2005 17:02 (UTC)
  21. Oppose. Per Netoholic and several others above and Sjakkalle makes a really good point. Overall this is VfD work it seems to me. Articles that don't claim to meet a guideline shouldn't be speedy material but should be passed through VfD. Rx StrangeLove 8 July 2005 12:35 (UTC)
  22. Lots of articles related to music to be deleted? Then devolve to a vfd-type page that meets the standards of WP:MUSIC, do not devolve to CSD, not worth making the mistakes. Pcb21| Pete 9 July 2005 14:52 (UTC)
  23. Oppose Gwk 9 July 2005 16:35 (UTC)
  24. 24 at 9 July 2005 18:30 (UTC)
  25. Oppose. Agree with Kappa. One person's not notable is another's vital. Grace Note 02:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose. This would allow the speedy deletion of articles about bands which meet the WP:MUSIC guidelines. Factitious 02:57, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  27. Oppose 3A is far better suited, in my opinion. Hiding 07:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose. - McCart42 (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose - ZeWrestler 15:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  30. There is absolutely no sense in basing a policy on a guideline. --Sn0wflake 07:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  31. WTH? Oppose! Guidlelines should NEVER be policy. That's the very nature of a guideline, otherwise it should be named policy. 3c would INCREASE VFD and speedy delete load, not decrease it or make it more manageable as is hoped with these amendments. Supporters need to think again about the concequence of making guidelines policy. 3b or even 3a are quite reasonable and are more lenient than the WP:MUSIC guidelines - but still do justice to keeping vanity off, but a lesser degree of honest notability in. This vote makes the vote 70% to 30% exactly - just one more common sense voter on this side will kill this amendment. We can do better. 3b or 3a were just fine. We do more harm than good with 3c. In the words of a senator in the US Senate "Which admission to we prefer, that we conciously harm the people we serve, or that we legislate without knowing what we're doing?"Inigmatus 15:33, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  32. Oppose. Most importantly, this makes a guideline effective policy. Furthermore, a good article can be written about an important band while neglecting the criteria. Superm401 | Talk 04:34, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  33. Oppose. I agree with Superm401 - a decent article may not even actually spell out the criteria. Leave to VFD. DS1953 05:49, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • There is no particular reason why a guideline can't be the base for a policy. For instance, we have based our 3RR enforcement policy on the previous 3RR guideline. It could be appropriate to move or copy the page out of the Wikiproject, though. Radiant_>|< 11:56, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  34. Oppose. Would support if the guidelines were explicitely written into the criteria, and not referenced to WP:MUSIC. -- Joolz 14:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose. WP:MUSIC is a guideline, not a policy, and could change in the future. I'm not 100% satisfied that WP:MUSIC is kind enough to indie bands, in any event. - Jersyko talk 02:10, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  36. Oppose. --Aphaea* 09:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose., per Jerysko's reasoning. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 09:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose speedying articles based on a guideline rather than a stable policy is not a good idea. I'm also unconvinced that the guideline offers anything that a verifiability test does not, and am uncomfortable that a notability test appears to be creeping in here. Lupin 14:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose. A page about a garage band does not do any harm if it stays for a week. It places minimal load on VfD since it probably gets just 5 delete votes. The controversial articles are what bog VfD down (stop listing them!). — David Remahl 15:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point is you wouldn't have to create that Vfd entry in the first place, just shoot on sight! Much quicker. GarrettTalk 01:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

The third part of the introduction reads: "It is possible (though highly unlikely) that a stub article is written about a famous musician, without the article asserting any of the WP:MUSIC music criteria. However, it is likely that such a stub will be improved rather than deleted by well-meaning admins or RC patrollers. Also, if it happens to be deleted, it can easily be recreated with actual content.". This is false and should invalidate this poll. Stubs are constants created about notable bands which don't assert any notability, but just describe the band. This is especially true of bands from non-Anglophone countries like China or Japan. In this case it is far more likely that a "busy" admin will delete it than a "well-meaning" admin will find and improve it. Also it's difficult to improve or recreate these things with no background information and no language skills, which is why the initial stub is valuable. Kappa 6 July 2005 09:17 (UTC)

Having witnessed the savage displays of apparently wilful ignorance often displayed on VfD, where at least such views are leavened by the need to discuss deletions reasonably, and the quite incomprehensible practice of listing for deletion very new stubs, I'm not happy to see decisions on deletion of otherwise good articles placed in the hands of individuals who may be able to convince themselves, through ignorance and laziness, that a band is not notable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 6 July 2005 11:09 (UTC)

I'm kinda bothered by the "medium or large country" requirement in case of a top 100 hit, as well as by the assertion that this would exclude only the smallest countries. The author of these guidelines obviously knew that this would be a problematic and controversial issue, and tried to play it down by including the note that most countries would not be considered too small; but that's essentially the same as saying that we should not worry about a law because even though it's bad, it won't be used, which is obviously rubbish (and potentially dangerous). In any case, I think that this violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy, as it divides countries into "important" and "not important", which is something that Wikipedia must not have an opinion on. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 6 July 2005 13:03 (UTC)

Note that if Tony Sidaway's new proposal (at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/P1) passes, it would apply to this proposal as well. I think it would answer many of the objections to this proposal. I urge those who have supported this proposal to consider supporting P1 as well, and those who have oppsoed it to consider a conditonal vote of support if and only if proposal P1 also passes. DES 7 July 2005 15:02 (UTC)

The WP:MUSIC page is not a policy page and is subject to change at any time. I don't like incorporating it by reference. Also, please see my objections on the prior proposal Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-B: in essence, problems with false positives for older acts and muscians who don't have much of a public face. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 7 July 2005 17:02 (UTC)

Robert Hardy edit

Relevant to the debate on this motion is the current VFD debate on Robert Hardy (bassist). Would the version as nominated be a speedy candidate if prop 3-C passes? I rather suspect it would. David | Talk 22:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. It asserts that he's a member of Franz Ferdinand (band); the lead section of that article clearly asserts fulfillment of WP:MUSIC criteria 1 and 7. Robert Hardy thus "assert[s] facts which obviously imply fulfillment of at least one of those criteria". —Cryptic (talk) 23:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say that Franz Ferdinand have had a top-100 hit, nor that they have won an important award. The proposal says "explicitly state fulfilment" or alternatively "obviously imply fulfilment". The article does neither - doesn't mention anything about the achievements of Franz Ferdinand. This is the danger of this proposal. David | Talk 00:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it does. It asserts that he's a member of FF, with a wikilink. The first lines of the FF article state that "The band's debut self-titled album released in 2004 debuted on the UK album charts at number 3". Thus, Robert's article makes an assertion (that he's a member of the band) which obviously implies fulfilment of the criteria (because the band had a chart hit). Radiant_>|< 08:07, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
It isn't "obvious", because as shown on the VFD debate many people were unaware of Franz Ferdinand. An admin might quite well have assumed that the band article was vanity as well; the proposal does not state that admins must check. What if the article had not included a wikilink? It would definitely have been speediable if 3-C passes. David | Talk 09:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal/3-C&oldid=1088824962"