Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Bryk
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 08:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dan Bryk
Article was nominated for speedy deletion per A7, non-notability, but doesn't qualify. The subject meets WP:MUSIC with a tour through Canada, the US and Japan, and with the outside coverage. That's imo enough to avoid speedy deletion, but the issue is whether it's enough to meet the notability thresholds. That's why I'm moving this to AfD instead. No opinion. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 02:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions and in the list of Canada-related deletions. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 02:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. If he passes WP:MUSIC, he deserves an article. Tevildo 02:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Per Wp Music !paradigm! 03:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think we understood how well we needed to justify Bryk's "career" to be notable. Sorry, it's our first wiki entry. We're getting it, honest. Umrecs 3:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Since you seem to represent Urban Myth Records, Umrecs, I strongly recommend that you read our conflict of interest policy. If your contributions to Wikipedia are determined to be primarily commercial promotion, you may be subject to blocking. --Dhartung | Talk 07:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- With all due respect, while Dan Bryk could be considered a "commercial" artist, if you had read our mission statement in your research, you might have noted that Urban Myth is a 'recording collective'. While we ultimately serve some of the facilitating functions a record company might, we are a non-profit 'artist collective' that serves as a resource for the artists who do the commerce. (FYI Urban Myth sells no products directly or from our website.) Semantics and issues of self-interest aside, I really don't see how you can dispute Dan is a notable artist (cf. new link to COVER Feature Story from Now Weekly, a 395,000 READER CIRCULATION city weekly and a major Toronto cultural signifier). I have supplied the baseline data and links there, please feel free to put your mad skillz to use and re-write for Wiki style. Merci. Umrecs 1:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- With all due respect, non-profit is still commercial -- but we don't care if you're non-profit. We're not here to provide free hosting and promotional services, let alone rewrite services, and if you persist in acting like our rules do not apply to you for some reason (believe me, we've seen them all), and we're just here to provide you a soapbox, you will run into problems -- I guarantee that. --Dhartung | Talk 20:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Dhartung, I'm not sure why you appear to taking this so personally. As you should realize from the proposed entry (or even a cursory Google search) Dan Bryk has plenty of other avenues for commercial promotion. My original entry was quite simple, factual and non-promotional, and it was immediately tagged for quick deletion. I then supplemented Dan's entry in hopes of enhanced notability, and was immediately attacked by yourself for alleged commercial promotion. Apart from my role at UM, I PERSONALLY believe Dan deserves a Wiki entry, assuming Wikipedia considers noteworthy alternative music artists to be worthy of entry, and it is up to editors like yourself to debate that. I'm still not sure how that equals "persist(ing) in acting like the rules do not apply to me." Really, hurling threats(!!!) at a first-time wiki author for admitting "Sorry, it's our first wiki entry" seems a little out of line. Umrecs 22:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- I am not taking this personally. I am telling you that Wikipedia has a conflict of interest policy and reminding you to abide by it. When an editor has an interest in an article, any article, their objectivity is likely to be called into question; in this case, had there been any question of notability, then for me (and others) the fact that it was written by a connected entity could easily have tipped argumentation the other way. It's really better to avoid this problem by not editing the article in the first place. Now, we really don't care whether you "personally believe" Bryk should have an entry. We only care whether he meets the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as notability. I have not attacked you, nor have I made threats, if you will reread my comment. I have been firm, and other Wikipedia editors and administrators may be far less forgiving of any violations now that you have been told about our policies, so you should base your future participation in Wikipedia on that. If you don't understand how your editing of the article is a conflict of interest -- and you have not said that you do -- then I will be happy to explain it again. --Dhartung | Talk 06:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Fully Understood. (I apologize for the cavalier tone of my "mad skillz" quip, since obviously these protocols are critically important to you.) The bottom line is, Dan Bryk, acclaimed, loved indie rocker he is, did not have an entry. My intial proposed entry had nothing but objective, factual data that you yourself _could_ have written based on one or two of the cited articles (and that's a selective sample; a Google or EBSCO search will return many more). It was IMMEDIATELY marked for speedy deletion. When augmented with _subjective_ data to DEFEND _notability_, the interest flag came up. Does NO-ONE else here find that process flawed, or at the very least problematic? Umrecs 13:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Placement of the speedy deletion tag is a nomination open to any editor who believes it is warranted. It is an implicit trust of the administrators that when they are closing speedy deletions, since only the nominator and the closing administrator are involved, that the admin take care to abide by the criteria. That was done. The admin had questions about the nomination, so placed it here for a community consensus, rather than leaving it between two people who disagree. To the contrary, that process worked wonderfully, and from your point of view, succeeded -- because here editors found sufficient notability to vote keep (in fact not one editor has voted "delete"). I find no flaw in this process, nor in the way it proceeded in this case. If had been a procedural flaw, we have deletion review as a sort of appeals process. --Dhartung | Talk 21:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- Fully Understood. (I apologize for the cavalier tone of my "mad skillz" quip, since obviously these protocols are critically important to you.) The bottom line is, Dan Bryk, acclaimed, loved indie rocker he is, did not have an entry. My intial proposed entry had nothing but objective, factual data that you yourself _could_ have written based on one or two of the cited articles (and that's a selective sample; a Google or EBSCO search will return many more). It was IMMEDIATELY marked for speedy deletion. When augmented with _subjective_ data to DEFEND _notability_, the interest flag came up. Does NO-ONE else here find that process flawed, or at the very least problematic? Umrecs 13:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- I am not taking this personally. I am telling you that Wikipedia has a conflict of interest policy and reminding you to abide by it. When an editor has an interest in an article, any article, their objectivity is likely to be called into question; in this case, had there been any question of notability, then for me (and others) the fact that it was written by a connected entity could easily have tipped argumentation the other way. It's really better to avoid this problem by not editing the article in the first place. Now, we really don't care whether you "personally believe" Bryk should have an entry. We only care whether he meets the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as notability. I have not attacked you, nor have I made threats, if you will reread my comment. I have been firm, and other Wikipedia editors and administrators may be far less forgiving of any violations now that you have been told about our policies, so you should base your future participation in Wikipedia on that. If you don't understand how your editing of the article is a conflict of interest -- and you have not said that you do -- then I will be happy to explain it again. --Dhartung | Talk 06:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Dhartung, I'm not sure why you appear to taking this so personally. As you should realize from the proposed entry (or even a cursory Google search) Dan Bryk has plenty of other avenues for commercial promotion. My original entry was quite simple, factual and non-promotional, and it was immediately tagged for quick deletion. I then supplemented Dan's entry in hopes of enhanced notability, and was immediately attacked by yourself for alleged commercial promotion. Apart from my role at UM, I PERSONALLY believe Dan deserves a Wiki entry, assuming Wikipedia considers noteworthy alternative music artists to be worthy of entry, and it is up to editors like yourself to debate that. I'm still not sure how that equals "persist(ing) in acting like the rules do not apply to me." Really, hurling threats(!!!) at a first-time wiki author for admitting "Sorry, it's our first wiki entry" seems a little out of line. Umrecs 22:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- With all due respect, non-profit is still commercial -- but we don't care if you're non-profit. We're not here to provide free hosting and promotional services, let alone rewrite services, and if you persist in acting like our rules do not apply to you for some reason (believe me, we've seen them all), and we're just here to provide you a soapbox, you will run into problems -- I guarantee that. --Dhartung | Talk 20:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- With all due respect, while Dan Bryk could be considered a "commercial" artist, if you had read our mission statement in your research, you might have noted that Urban Myth is a 'recording collective'. While we ultimately serve some of the facilitating functions a record company might, we are a non-profit 'artist collective' that serves as a resource for the artists who do the commerce. (FYI Urban Myth sells no products directly or from our website.) Semantics and issues of self-interest aside, I really don't see how you can dispute Dan is a notable artist (cf. new link to COVER Feature Story from Now Weekly, a 395,000 READER CIRCULATION city weekly and a major Toronto cultural signifier). I have supplied the baseline data and links there, please feel free to put your mad skillz to use and re-write for Wiki style. Merci. Umrecs 1:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Since you seem to represent Urban Myth Records, Umrecs, I strongly recommend that you read our conflict of interest policy. If your contributions to Wikipedia are determined to be primarily commercial promotion, you may be subject to blocking. --Dhartung | Talk 07:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Multinational tours + multiple commercial albums [1]= meets WP:MUSIC. -- IslaySolomon | talk 03:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- What the heck? keep. While I'm glad that the pendulum has swung away from "Delete per this proposal", I'm not happy it went all the way to "Delete despite meeting this guideline"... -Amarkov blahedits 03:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Meets WP:MUSIC. —ShadowHalo 04:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Are you kidding me? This article practically embodies WP:MUSIC.S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as WP:MUSIC does seem met. Article is a mess, though. --Dhartung | Talk 07:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep, but it does need a good re-write. SkierRMH 07:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, meets WP:MUSIC but needs a complete rewrite. I never heard of him but through a Google search he is obviously notable. Terence Ong 07:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- This is a pretty no-brainer keep. May need some rewriting, but that's a different issue. Contested speedies don't necessarily have to be taken to AFD, if doing so would violate WP:SNOWBALL. Bearcat 03:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, as while the article is indeed rather messy and we should tag it for cleanup, it easily fulfills the WP:MUSIC notability criteria. To illustrate, reviews of his work have been featured in several recent non-trivial published works, such as Pitchfork Media. Check out Pitchfork Review #1 and Pitchfork Review #2 for examples. TheSteve04 20:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
