Talk:City of Rockford Pipe Band

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 July 2006. The result of the discussion was nom withdrawal.

Comments Desired...

thank you for that invitation. It has just come to my knowledge that wikipedia acctually has guidelines for notability and vanity, and that this article should probably be moved to a userpage and not be on wikipedia. This is definately a shame because the article appeared to be quality and original, rare as far as pipe band articles have gone.--Musaabdulrashid 08:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

that sounded nasty. I'll get back to this--Musaabdulrashid 10:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Musaabdulrashid - As sala'amu alaikum (I hope this is an appropriate greeting - if not please accept my apologies)

You are, in deed, perceptive. Yes, I am related to a member of the City of Rockford Pipe Band. My lovely wife is a piper. I reviewed the guidelines in regard to Vanity Articles and while there is a relationship, she is one of a 25 member group. I believe the article made no reference to any particular individual or included any promotional content. It simply stated the history and accomplishments of the band.

Which leads us to the "notability issue." ??? Again, I reviewed the Wikipedia guidelines. A prickly issue. What constitutes a "major award" for a pipe band? 1st place in the "World's" or a "Champion Supreme" designation in the midwest (11 states - the band is presently in 1st place by points for "MWPBA Champion Supreme" in Grade 4 for 2006 with one competion to go.).

May I suggest the following: As I have no idea how to create discussion on the "notabilty issue" (I'm ::a Wiki-newbie) would you be willing to create some "talk" on the issue. In the mean, pull the "tag" :for a week or so and see what happens. I would be willing to accept the decision of the Wiki process.

--Srebob 23:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)srebob

peace. The only way to create discussion on the article's notability would be to submit it for deletion. see: Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Deletion_process. Here, it will be posted along with every other article nominated for deletion to make it easy for users to judge objectively and compare whether it belongs in the encyclopedia. Obviously, if you're willing to delete or userfy the article, and there's no other objection this would not be nessesary.

I personally think that the article should be added to your user page or subgage, or be deleted. notability is not completely objective, but as bands go a grade 4 pipe band, even if it is a regular winner of the world championships, is not notable. On the list of US pipe bands so far, there are three G1 pipe bands, Three G2 pipe bands and your article. We (secondary sources) would obviously write about the rest of the grade 2 bands in the country and a good chunk of the G3s before we got to any grade 4 pipe bands. There is also the obvious sign that if it was notable, someone who was not related to the subject would write an article about it. thanks--Musaabdulrashid 02:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with some of this, but it sounds like you're essentially saying that any subject that doesn't already have an existing entry is not notable by definition. However, it may be simply that the page doesn't exist because nobody has gotten around to writing it yet. As just one example, Top_100_winning_pitchers_of_all_time includes three red-linked pitchers; clearly, these individuals satisfy the notability requirements. For various reasons, articles for a topic generally aren't written in order from most important to least important - they just pop up whenever someone is inspired or knowledgeable about something. So saying that this entry should go because there are higher grade bands without articles isn't really a valid argument. Having said that, I do think that the notability of a Grade 4 band (even one that has won Grade 4 competitions) is perhaps questionable. Dsreyn 20:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I was using that example to illustrate the premace of vanity in this article. I dont think it would be likely that a person would just be inspired to write an article on a grade 4 band, unless they had some connection to it. Other than that I agree with you.--Musaabdulrashid 00:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Musaabdulrashid,

Thank you for your withdrawl of the "Deletion" and your kind comments in regard to the article. But, alas, the "Notability" (remaining tag) issue remains (I'm assuming "Vanity" is resolved). As I am admittedly involved with the band (not a member) I intend to remain neutral. However, for the sake of future articles on pipe bands I believe a minimum consensual standard needs to be established. I am, again, relying on you to intitiate the appropriate wiki-stuff. I'm still, as a newbie, slogging through...(parenthetically, I'm a little confused in the over all use of wiki-jargon, etc.) --Srebob 23:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)srebob

The vanity issue isn't quite resolved, but the simple fact is that few people would be willing to go to this tiring length for a vanity article. When the list of pipe bands article was just a list of external links, people would simply edit it to include a link to their band's website. It would be fairly easy to spot blatant vanity (now that all links have acctual articles) as there would be no claim to notibility whatsoever in that type of article. The overall concept of notability is not difficult to understand, whatever should be on wikipedia is notable and what ever shouldn't be is non-notable. We have AfD because this obviously isn't a cut and dry rule.--Musaabdulrashid 08:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)