Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 19
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
wow
- 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 delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. An encyclopaedia requires multiple, reliable non-trivial sources - these have not been provided. The evidence presented fails to prove, therefore, that Mr Nysted - at this time - meets the requirements of WP:MUSIC, therefore is at present not suitable for an article. This may change in the future. I will not protect this article from recreation, but will not hesitate to do so if it is without being substantially different (in spirit as well as in appearance), and asserting - within Wikipedia policy - why the article now assert Lee Nysted's notability. Proto::► 16:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- (For the record, the article was recreated in under an hour, and was subsequently protected against recreation.) Zetawoof(ζ) 08:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Lee Nysted Experience
- - (View AfD)
Self-published Myspace artist, who has attempted to post about himself in several guises, namely: Lee Nysted (deleted and salt), Nysted Music (now subject of AfD), and now The Lee Nysted Experience. Ohconfucius 08:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Moved the original deletion reason up above improperly placed keep opinions by SPAs. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The above comment; nomination "reason" for deletion, and start to this discussion is patently false and misleading. See article "The Lee Nysted Experience" for sources such as AMG, that Wikipedia states are to considered as reliable.Huntress829 19:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Most editors have not returned here since the revisions were started on the 21st of January.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 04:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the objectivity of this debate is horribly distorted at best. It appears that the Nysted guy has been met with the same criticism for each Wiki entry -- whether Lee Nysted, NystedMusic, or this current one. Reviewing the deletion discussion forums, it seems the central argument against deletion is that Nysted's group (in whatever form) lacks notoriety/credibility.
Let's look at this objectively. WP:MUSIC defines the following as "central criteria" for inclusion. I've bolded those which Nysted clearly meets:
1. Has had a charted hit on any national music chart.
2. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.
3. Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,3 reported in reliable sources.
→4. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).
→5. Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.
6. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.
→7. Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno or Mercury Music Award. (Ok, nominated with a Grammy, but I think that fits the bill)
8. Has won or placed in a major music competition.
9. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.) →10. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.
11. Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio or TV network.
For composers and lyricists:
→1. The person has has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the person and reliable.
2. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above, a notable theatre, or has been taken up by a musician or ensemble that qualifies above.
3. Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run as such things are judged in their particular situation and time.
4. Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria.
→5. Has written a song or composition which has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers. (see Grammy nomin above)
6. Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist that meets the above criteria.
→7. Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on his or her genre of music.
While I'm not a Nysted fan -- all I've seen of him is from this article in question -- it's interesting enough that an open forum like Wikipedia would rather have NO information about this musician than SOME information. When I think of Wikipedia, i think of an "end all, be all" information forum. Why not let Nysted and his cohorts have their say? He may meet only the minimal requirements, but they should be sufficient; now, if there's something UNTRUE or DISHONEST about his entries, then we're on something different, but I don't see this being a dishonest quest.
While he's certainly not of Bob Dylan notoriety, I vote Keep -- his notable group members (some from my beloved Chicago) should easily qualify him.
Does anyone think Wikipedia is any less credible because his entry exists??!! --Chicago60607 23:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as still no assertion of notability, failing WP:MUSIC. The Rambling Man 11:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Artist has recorded with other famous musicians, has an album available on Amazon. Recognize the controversy surrounding the delete and salt of Lee Nysted, but this delete apparently was because of vandalism. I'll give this article a chance. —Brim 13:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment A single album on Amazon rated by six people, some of whom know the artist, none of whom have rated any other albums ought not count as satisfying WP:MUSIC. But okay, the band apparently had two session artists from notable bands in an album released on Nysted's own label, so it might squeeze in. The AMG doesn't credit one of these musicians, Todd Sucherman, on the album, by the way. The Rambling Man 14:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep
- To the administrators:
- In receipt of e-mail on this issue:
- I did not create the Lee Nysted Experience, or Nysted Music, although both articles should be allowed, or in the alternative, my name, and the Nysted Music articles should re-directed to The Lee Nysted Experience. (A legitimate and verified inclusion into the encyclopedia.)
- I have asked the author of the re-direct of the Lee Nysted Experience (from Clear Channel) to simply list verifications of all claims, which he did, very kindly. He is the "dewart." He is no way related to me; does not work for NystedMusic. In fact, he works for one of the world's largest digital radio stations and media companies. I am grateful that he has come to my defense.
- I have no self published anything here, save for this defense of my good name. (i.e., still frozen in time.)
- He is quite aware of this whole issue and he cited AMG, my web site, THE ORCHARD (Label), and will give several other articles in support of the above. Anyone interested in the actual Wikipedia guidelines and criteria for inclusion of musicians and ensembles will see that all the necessary items for verification are here. Please help to make this encyclopedia what it is designed to be.
- The vandals from MySpace that have tried to destroy any effort to get an article about me published, will ultimately lose due to obvious Wikipedia criteria, which have been met. ("any one of...")
- Any one of the following can be used for "The Lee Nysted Experience"
-
- .) AMG (World's largest source of music info.)
- .) THE ORCHARD.com Largest digital label in the world signed Lee Nysted...see link.
- .) 99% of all digital sites now carry Nysted Music, including parts of his second album with noted artist Todd Sucherman, drummer for STYX with Wikipedia page.
- .) Retail outlets like BestBuy, and Starbucks are listed as having signed Lee Nysted (See THE ORCHARD.)
- .) Matt Walker, (the drummer) verified musician in Lee Nysted band / ensemble. Same for Todd Sucherman, the drummer.(See Wikipedia.)
- .) Lee Nysted web site verifies all digital sites as does Orchard.
- .) Artistopia verifies the above
- .) Google: Lee Nysted and you will find 15,000 sites that will verify the above.
- .) Several of Lee's songs are played right now on the largest radio stations in the world. (See Orchard)
- Criteria for inclusion have been met many times over. ("any one of...")
- Truly yours,
- Lee Nysted
- Please note: I did not write the articles. I did not hire anyone to write the articles. I have no pending litigation with Wikipedia, nor do I intend on same. I pray for the vandals that have started this mess. Thank you, Lee Nysted 1-19-07 8:55 a.m. Chicago time.
- Thank you for your time,
- Lee Nysted
- NystedMusic
Strong KeepNote: struck to avoid double counting. Ohconfucius 08:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak keepfor the playing with other established and known artists as squeaking juuuuust under the wire for WP:MUSIC. I've said before that I have an issue with The Orchard (music label) being used to establish notability as a major label, because it appears to be nothing more than a distributor of digital music for other labels of varying sizes and importance. There's no indication they're involved in actually signing or developing artists. (Not to mention their article is unsourced.) Tony Fox (arf!) 21:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Changed opinion to Delete; further arguments by established editors - specifically Dhartung - combined with the turning up of the "Grammy nominations" by Static Universe below, have made me change my mind. Tony Fox (arf!) 08:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Question The only possible criterion of WP:MUSIC this subject could meet is Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such. Lee Nysted has used as studio musicians two drummers who are certainly notable, but is a studio musician in a band if he is a hired hand who does not otherwise tour or write music for the band (and according to the article, Lee writes his own music)? JChap2007 00:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- User talk:Lee Nysted now contains a copy of the page that is the subject of this AfD, set up with "From Wikipedia..." at the top and "Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lee_Nysted_Experience" at the bottom, so when the other websites scrap it, it will look like they took it from a Wikipedia article. <sigh> JChap2007 00:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- If any mirror of Wikipedia is silly enough to also publicly mirror User: and any of the *Talk: namespaces, then they're probably Extremely Broken and/or Overly Meticulous. Granted, I've only been to a few mirrors anyway =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Many of them scrape everything, including AfD discussions. Google your username if you want to see what I'm talking about. JChap2007 14:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- If any mirror of Wikipedia is silly enough to also publicly mirror User: and any of the *Talk: namespaces, then they're probably Extremely Broken and/or Overly Meticulous. Granted, I've only been to a few mirrors anyway =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Doing a news archive search, all I get is a press release posted on a bulletin board type section of a news site. NPOV, NN, and not much else Citicat 03:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Argument now fails after insertion of new data. Huntress829 05:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- — Huntress829 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC) (UTC).
- Delete as I believe the article does not support the assertion that the notable musicians are in a "band" or "ensemble", since the music is by Lee Nysted.
- The authors and subject of the article have little experience with Wikipedia, so I forgive them their breaches of rules such as calling a legitimate nomination on Articles for Deletion "vandalism" or based in "wrong motives", a breach of our rule that we should always assume good faith. I must also insist that they stop claiming that people are making up rules when we are having a discussion about how to interpret them; this is disruptive.
- To the question "Could anyone open a Wiki account and speak about this issue? Would the opinions matter?", in our guide to deletion, which I recommend you read, we state "Because of our past problems, opinions offered by new or anonymous users are often met with suspicion and may be discounted during the closing process." Opinions that are phrased politely and properly based in Wikipedia policies and guidelines are likely to be given greater weight. To the question, "Who is the decision making body?", we are it -- Articles for Deletion discussions are open to any Wikipedia editor and drawn from the entire community by intention. If there is a legitimate complaint about the procedures of a particular AFD, an appeal to deletion review may be made, but that will almost always simply result in a relisting and a new vote.
- As for the article before us, there is a persistent argument for notability based on the projects of these other musicians, but notability is not associative; the individual must be independently notable. The WP:MUSIC loophole puts an article on shaky notability ground, and this one is a primary example of why. Articles still should meet WP:V and WP:RS above all, and "15,000 articles on Google" is not meeting that requirement. Google is not a source. Labels and companies that sell music are not independent sources, no matter how "reliable" they may be (presumably their information is accurate, but they have a conflict of interest). All Music Guide is occasionally used as proof of notability, but they don't actually write about Nysted, they just list one album and not the most recent. That would meet WP:V for information on that album, but it isn't really good enough per our notability guidelines. I strongly appreciate that Mr. Nysted is an accomplished musician, but the lack of sources which meet our policy is a difficult bar to step over. --Dhartung | Talk 06:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete If this guy was notable he wouldn't need to prop himself up with phony Grammy nominations, which has been posted on many web pages. Static Universe 08:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Here goes my reasoning:
- a) a google search of my own gives me the same suspicious as Static Universe. Mr. Nysted, you asked for a reliable source? One would be, oh, say, http://www.grammy.com/GRAMMY_Awards/49th_Show/list.aspx, from which Mr. Nysted is conspicuously absent.
- Reply: Please see link to Grammy nominations...above. 1 of 3. song #264.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 15:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- b) multiple postings from him and his "friend" Christine Hunter, with shockingly similar writing styles.
- Reply: That is not my fault. I did not write the articles and do not know why a stub should not have been left.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 15:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- c) Multiple articles written under differnet names and recreated multiple times Ahem, Ahem.
- d) ensemble artists from Brian Wilson, Styx, Smashing Pumpkins, and Boston?
Reply: The truth as proven.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 15:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- In all, sir, to be extremely blunt, we are regulars, and we've seen hoaxes and liars before, and we've had many people spam us before, and we know what it looks like. Thus delete without prejudice. Patstuarttalk|edits 09:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Reply: To be blunt, sir, your arguments do not make sense and they are not backed by anything reliable.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 15:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete this silly WP:VSCA exercise. Sandstein 10:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Reply: A non-argument and not valid. Fails.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 15:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- — Lee_Nysted (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC) (UTC).
- Delete if there's really nothing that would indicate this is notable. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Reply: Argument fails based on new data. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 15:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per the answer to my question above. The drummers are just hired hands and not "members" of the band for purposes of WP:MUSIC. JChap2007 13:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Also, salt per the history of article recreation about this topic. JChap2007 13:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment:All artists in all bands directed by labels and production companies are "hired hands." The Back Street Boys were all hired hands. Billy Corgan's band were all hired hands. Double standards are not seemly. All members of established bands that are now back on the road, are hired talent. A band is a band. The Experience is a band/ensemble by definition. You have simply chosen to re-write the rules and criteria; definition of band/ensemble. Majority rules? Let's get a rope?
Comment
As I suspected all along, this is nothing more than a "witch hunt" (as seen by all the "new" posts from MySpace users.) The article meets the guidelines and Wikipedia criteria. I am in no way involved with any false or misleading information about Lee. Billy Corgan wrote all the material for the Pumpkins, yet it is a band/ensemble.
The Lee Nysted name and the name of his band should be available to the world as it is on thousands of sites. If that does not happen on Wikipedia; for the wrong reasons, then Wikipedia guidelines and criteria do not amount to more than the gang rape that is happening here.
This is the reason I asked the question above.
I resent the idea that Lee and his fans would add to this charade.
C.H. 1-20-07
-
- — Huntress829 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC) (UTC).
- Comment to both "C.H" and Mr Nysted, please re-read the text added by User:Dhartung as it cuts through all the sentimentality and gets straight to the point. Verifiability of musical notability by reliable sources is the whole point. Comply with that and the article will stay. The Rambling Man 16:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - blatant promotion, fails WP:V and WP:RS, no reason to think this lot are notable. Moreschi Deletion! 20:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and SALT There is more negative evidence than positive, and the obvious need felt to push this article by the artist himself indicates to me that Nysted wishes to use WP as an advertising vehicle, which is against policy. MSJapan 00:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - per all the other great reasons. Doesn't pass WP:MUSIC, WP:COI, and various other policies and guidelines. SALT this page so this person doesn't make this article again. Wikipedia is not the same as the real world. In the real world, you may be rich, famous, talented, etc. But you come to Wikipedia broke, lacking the only thing of value. PTO 03:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment It's interesting that all of the Nysted reviews posted everywhere all seem to be written by Keith 'MuzikMan' Hannaleck, a press agent (scroll down). Static Universe 07:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Comment: Please read some of the links. There are more coming each day. There are approximately 1400 reviews out there.Huntress829 00:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Every site has reviews, sometimes hundreds of reviews. Huntress829 00:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- — Huntress829 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC) (UTC).
- Your claim is patently false and not to guidelines. There are hundreds of reviews, many on the article page. Please read and then verify your claims with facts. Please do not call the "kettle black." Verification.Huntress829 14:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- — Huntress829 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC) (UTC).
- If this is true, then please link to one legitimate review. You'd think someone with the musical connections to get the drummer from Smashing Pumpkins and touring musicians with Brian Wilson, STYX, and Boston would get at least some press. Static Universe talk|contribs 18:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Huntress829, it is always the responsibility of the editor making the claim to back that up with a verified source. So far I have read two "reviews" by this MusikMan person apparently on open-submission websites and no others. There are also numerous links that fail to prove the claim and fail WP:RS and external links policies. Again, I insist that you cease attacking other editors raising legitimate questions. --Dhartung | Talk 22:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment: How on earth did Wikipedia suddenly get caught up in changing the rules to require reviews?Huntress829 00:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC) "Wikipedia states: Resources recommended: AMG."Huntress829 00:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- — Huntress829 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC) (UTC).
- Comment You need to understand something about how Grammy nominations work. On the first go around, MANY artists get nominated, by peers, by their labels, by the raidio stations, by just about anybody. Then there is a winnowing, by committee's I think, that reduces the nominees in each category to 3-5. THEN the full body votes on those reduced lists to arrive at winners. EVERYONE that was in that first grab-bag is a NOMINEE, but this first round is almost never listed anywhere. Simply the fact that Lee's nomination does not show on the Grammy's website is NOT proof that he was NOT a nominee. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 08:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Thank you Mr. Smith. There is a second tier to determine if the inclusions are actual and in the right genre. There are steps taken to verify the facts about artists. Not everyone can submit a "tape." The artist must then meet certain guidelines established by NARAS. The next tier goes to voting members only. Then there is a final tier, which is the one recently published.Huntress829 15:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Bill W. Smith, jr. for shedding light on the false accusations (Above.)Huntress829 15:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- — Huntress829 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC) (UTC).
- Never did, never would. Seems to me that by calling Mr. Nysted a liar, YOU are in violation of WP:FAITH. So, think about your glass house REAL hard before you throw that stone. I have NO connection with Mr. Nysted in ANY capacity, btw. I am just a fellow musician who happened to see an inaccuracy and wanted to set it straight. You cannot DISPROVE his claim by what you pointed to, though you were certainly within the right to request some kind of confirmation of the nomination status, which I believe his supporters have provided. SO, is there anything else you would like to accuse anyone of? --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 17:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Mr. Dhartung, I believe Mr. Smith was trying, and rightly so, to correct a remark that is considered against Wikipedia guidelines and that is to assume that Mr. Nysted is lying about his Grammy nominations. There is nothing phony about Mr. Nysted's claims; unless the author of that statement can prove otherwise, it must be withdrawn as not credible. The comment was made by someone that has no knowledge of the "Grammy" process, and thus committed an error in judgment, by "our" standards. I am a user here.Huntress829 00:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Reply Mr. Smith committed no breach of process, but he is wrong if he is asserting that because it cannot be disproven, then we can use a person's claim that they were included in a private tier of Grammy nominations. This is exactly opposite to Wikipedia policy. We may only use the claim if it can be independently verified. Saying that is not saying that anyone is lying, and you are muddying the waters to portray it that way. We cannot use this claim, period. --Dhartung | Talk 23:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Reply to reply by Mr. Dhartung:
See above and below, and you will see the link to 1 of three "private" nomination ballots for Lee Nysted and hundreds of Grammy "hopefuls." The ballot was found in Google.
- COMMENT: To dispel the rant of "phony Grammy nominations" here is a link to the 3rd tier for 1 of 3 Grammy awards I was nominated for: Song #264 Lee Nysted Song of the year#264http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 04:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Song #264 was nominated in the second tier. There is nothing unusual about being a nominee. It happens all the time and it is the truth. Claims that is was a "phony" should be stricken as false and misleading, aside from being insulting to my name.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 14:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- That's fascinating. The document you point to is clearly marked Entry List, not "Nominations", "Nominees", or anything of the sort. According to the official website, "Entries are recordings submitted for GRAMMY consideration. Entries that meet all eligibility requirements are then voted on by The Academy's voting members and the results of that vote are the nominations." [42] While it is certainly possible that your entry was advanced to the nomination round, the document above proves nothing of the sort. --Dhartung | Talk 18:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Reply: Entry list are those that were nominated and made the list. If you go to the end of the list you will see verification that said list came from NARAS. As I said earlier, the nominations were done and I ended up in the third tier, after the voting members, including me, voted. I had 3 nominations, one of which was for Best Gospel performance? Go figure. End of Grammy story.
You sir, Mr. Dhartung, are not following your own guidelines of assuming that what I tell you is correct. I back it up with a document from NARAS and you still do not get it. Thank you Mr. Smith for your accurate depiction of what is happening here.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 20:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The ballot, you see, is very real. I cannot use it in the article, because that would be a copywrite violation.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 20:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment: To: Mr. Dhartung I think it is imperative that "reviews" not be made a central issue here. If you want reviews, many of the links in the article will give you reviews. (Hundreds, in fact.)However, reviews literally have nothing to do with the reliablity, notability and verification issue, all of which have been met. If you want reviews, we will list dozens from the various sites out there. That is not seemly and it is not part of the issues that Rambling Man stressed as the keys to keeping my article about Lee's band. Strong Keep.Huntress829 00:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- struck to avoid double counting Ohconfucius 08:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- I would say reviews are part of the central criterion to establishing the beginnings of notability as defined in WP:MUSIC: "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable". It's the first sentence after "A musician or ensemble is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:" Static Universe talk|contribs 01:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Reply to Huntress829: Reviews are, in fact, central to the establishment of an artist's notability. So are interviews and features. The existence of "hundreds" of reviews found via Google (an undetermined number being by the same person) is irrelevant, as none presented so far have been in credible, independent third-party sources. None. We are not making this a central issue because we don't like Mr. Nysted, we already have this as a central issue by longstanding consensus and confirmed policy. --Dhartung | Talk 23:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Reply to Dhartung reply: Mr. Dhartung, It is ironic that one of the reviews that was here, was deleted for copywrite infringement. On my web site, you will find a copy of it.(a pdf file.) I own the copywrite, now. Not a soul took the time to find that out. The link is out in the article. There are at least 90 reviews, if you want to go to the article?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 16:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The reviews at AMG are listed in iTunes. The author of the AMG review signed his name on iTunes. AMG is listed as the source. AMG is one of 2 sources considered reliable by Wikipedia for albums. There are at least 5 additional reviews listed in the links provided. Independent networks around the globe. If you are now making reviews a central issue, we will be happy to provide hundreds of reviews and their links. CLEAR CHANNEL and the authors of this article will provide this page with additional notability sources, including the other key member of the band, Scott Bennett, who won a Grammy for his work on the SMILE album (Brian Wilson.) We never intended to make this a parade, but that is what we seem to have here. The unforunate part is that no one wants to help edit the truth, you seem to rather prevent the truth from coming out.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 14:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I think anyone looking at the references in the article today, and the days ahead, will see very clearly that the "non-trivial works," reviews, and the notability issue is clear "as a bell." If the editors of Wikipedia want more I will provide more. I am prepared to add 1400 reviews, comments from over 10,000 sites worldwide, and the links to same.
"NON-Trivial works." That says nothing about reviews, by the way.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 04:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe I am prepared to offer up any and all information to satisfy any and all requirements for a legitimate article in this noble work, known as Wikipedia. I also stand ready to help make this institution more free of vandalism, which threatens us all to the core. Thank you, C.H.Huntress829 04:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment:: please do feel free to add references and reviews. Kindly ensure that these are reliable, just only a small handfull of high-quality reviews, such as from Q magazine, Mojo etc. Reviews posted by individuals on sites such as Amazon fail this test. You should, however, bear in mind WP:POINT and refrain from overlinking. The debate on Grammy nominations is moot, as nominations do not count for squat here: WP:MUSIC states: "Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno or Mercury Music Award": "nomination" does not equal "win". Also, it's a big stretch to call a session musician a band member, as there is no permanence at all, and certainly no sharing of royalties. Steve Gadd and Jeff Porcaro played on tens of thousands of tracks, and so that stretched (and fallacious) logic would enable every one of those artists who recorded with them "notable". Ohconfucius 07:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Reply: Since when do reviews on Amazon, or other established "non-trivial works" lose the credibility? Please leave us something to use as a reference to your "new rule." Mr. Ohconfucius. You seem to be able to pull rules out of a hat. I have been around for 6 months, and I do not read your rules anywhere in Wikipedia. Guidelines are not in "stone."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 04:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment to supporter(s) of Nysted: You know pretty well I can't change my remarks : it's a lose/lose for me if I do. I will not be bullied or browbeaten to doing so either. If your claims have already been proven, you will not need me to withdraw any of my remarks. The arguments will speak for themselves. You should first refer to WP:VANDAL if you are contemplating changing my, or any other editors comments. I do not intend on making any further comments to this debate, and I will stick to my word, unlike Mr Nysted. Ohconfucius 06:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment by Lee Nysted: Reply to Ohconfucius:
- Please sir, "your word?" We are encouraged to discuss the issue at hand; change your posts and your mind, if you see evidence to do such a thing. That is stressed in the guidelines. You made a false accusation and you have a choice as to whether or not you can admit you were wrong. There is no bullying in this discussion. The discussion is supposed to lead to an article of truth.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 15:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I changed my mind and came back here to defend my name and my rights. I will salt this article and the arguments, because I find it absolutely astounding.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 15:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Quite the assumption, Mr. Dhartung. The two journalists that wrote the article are to be commended for their works and the due diligence expended to get all the details in, so the article would qualify for publication according to Wikipedia guidelines and criteria. Rambling Man indicated what was needed and that has been supplied many times over. The basis for Wikipedia, as a resource of information, is getting to the truth rather than throwing it away. A good editor would help to write an article about an artist that works within the framework of this encyclopedia. My work is very real as is the band/ensemble. The Lee Nysted Experience is notable by every standard known to mankind, including Wikipedia. The idea of starting out this way on Wikipedia, is unfortunate. It is even more unfortunate that editors with less than 6 months of experience here, can and do, destroy the very framework of this organization. Journalists are not required to like the people they write about, nor do journalists have the right to censor the real truth from an encyclopedia.
- "This page in a nutshell: Assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it."
Is that what you are doing Mr. Dhartung?
- This page in a nutshell: Comment on content, not on the contributor.
Is that what the rest of the editors are doing, Mr. Dhartung?
Now back on topic:
The article is in need of some polishing but clearly has what it takes to qualify for entry. I would like my name taken out of salt, and have it directed to this article, please.
Thank you, one and all for your time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 01:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Most editors have not returned here since the revisions were started on the 21st of January.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 04:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 04:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I removed your second delete vote below, Mr. Fox. You voted below and above. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 04:29, 24 January 2007
-
- I've been watching. Look, here's the deal, from where I sit. Here's a Google search for "The Lee Nysted Experience". About 60 hits. I see lots of copies of the same mini-blurb and no non-trivial independent third-party coverage. Here is a Google search for "Lee Nysted". About 505 hits. They include this press release in a number of places, identified here as a press release distributed by MuzicReviews.com. Other incidences are parts of artist lists or short blurbs posted by the artist or a rep. (I'm not sure what the deal with this one is, but hey.) Essentially, these are not reliable sources. That is the key problem here and, as stated in WP:MUSIC, multiple, non-trivial published works are the central criterion for inclusion. The album is distributed by Orchard Music, as are thousands of others by independent artists, but is (despite the strident comments at the top of the page and elsewhere) not produced by a notable record label. That is another issue under WP:MUSIC. Congratulations on the first-round Grammy nomination; the criteria states that awards must be won. I still, despite the substantial verbage brought into this article by the two proponents, see nothing at all that indicates the artist meets the inclusion criteria. Judging from the fact that only four editors, three of whom are single-purpose accounts, feel this article should be kept, the arguments have yet to sway anyone who has opined towards deletion. (To forestall the apparent need to claim everyone who's against this article is an attacker from MySpace, I should note that I've never had a MySpace page, I try to avoid going to MySpace pages, and so on.) At this point, I'm done with further comment on this, and I'll be looking back to see the decision of the administrator who closes this discussion. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I hope this doesn't look like I'm blowing my own horn in this post...
Basically, if your project is well-known enough to merit a Wikipedia article, we expect that somebody other than you will want to write an article about it! Please take a look at our welcome page. You might find some of the information there helpful. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Lee Nysted, Do NOT edit the discussion posts of others. If you continue, you WILL be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
'Comment:' Please read the sources of the article, Peter.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 02:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- First off, I did not write the articles. Your agument about that, Peter, fails.
- Second, "Google hits" will never be a reliable guide to notability. Anyone can buy Google hits. The original article was in my name, and should have been left; edited. My web site is getting hundreds of thousands of google hits, partly because we use ad-words. The Lee Nysted name is the source. Your argument, Tony, fails at both ends. Further, you are only one editor to return, and I suspect that you have not gone through all of the links, or the new sources, judging by your comment about notability.
- Third and most important, the article now meets all of the requirements as set forth in Wikipedia rules, guidelines and / or established sources for reliability/notability. Quite simply put, the discussion should be over and the article stays per the comment made by The Rambling Man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 14:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like to encourage everyone here to "assume good faith" in what has become a rather heated discussion. It seems to me that while Ohconfucius has failed to note that not everything about Lee Nysted is self-published, he has broadly hit the nail on the head: there seems to be a determined claque that wants to see an article on this artist, and this claque is determined to cite any source it can to claim notability. I've taken a look at the references cited, and my own view is that at present notability is not proven: once I remove the various self-published sites and sites that simply mirror press releases ( see the Jazz Review link for a particularly egregious example of this - exactly the kind of thing that doesn't make a good source but has a superficial gloss of plausibility ) I do not find much more than for any other minor pub or club artist. This is not enough, and for that reason I feel that we should Delete this article. WMMartin 16:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like to say that although they did not play a part in my decision, I was very unhappy about the small number of editors for this article, and in particular the fact that Huntress829 appears to have no existence other than as a member of the Lee Nysted fan-club. I also didn't care for the slightly intimidating comments that she (??) left on Ohconfucius's talk page: let's try to play nicely. Finally, I notice that Lee Nysted has made some contributions to this article and to various talk pages. Neglecting the similarities in posting style between Lee Nysted and Huntress829, which ( "assuming good faith" ) I am assuming is entirely coincidental, I would suggest that if Mr Nysted is really keen on getting an entry in Wikipedia he would be more likely to get it by concentrating on his music. The musicians we cover in this Encyclopedia tend to get their coverage because of their musical work, not because of their skill in quibbling in deletion debates. Notability arises from accomplishment, not from publicity. WMMartin 16:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Reply: Mr. Martin, Your reasons have no foundation and are simple every day "put downs." Clearly against everything this organization stands for. Arguments fail.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 04:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete because I cannot find anything out there that is not either trivial or emanating fomr the subject (a press release or whatever). Impassioned defence by involved parties is noted but unpersuasive: conflict of interest means you should be a bit less aggressive. Attacking other editors will get you precisely one thing: blocked from editing. My condolences to whoever has to close this mess. Guy (Help!) 17:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Reply: Please keep your argument to the points at hand. It fails per guidelines and criteria being met. There is no conflict of interest. I am defending my good name and honor. When people lie about me or my family, I feel a great obligation to defend same. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 04:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment:Out of 17,000 articles and listings by every media company on earth, I believe you are not looking. I will be as blunt as you are.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 02:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete had a look at the AMG review - it's not there, they merely show the album to have been released, as such, I don't think the subject is notable and there's no hard, reliable sources which prove otherwise. The press release is automatically disqualified from being a reliable source as it's affiliated with the subject, delete, salt and if recreation is attempted again, consider blocking those responsible in order to prevent dispruption. --Kind Regards - Heligoland 19:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment: AMG has the C.D. AMG is one of 2 sources WE require.
- Delete. Not notable. There is nothing in the article which indicated notability. There are no links to reviews. The artist's own webpage links to only one non-anonymous review (the rest are "customer reviews" from Amazon, iTunes, etc.). FInding anything resembling even sales data on any of the sites referred to is improbable.Argyriou (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Argument fails. Asked and answered. No sales data is required and either are reviews. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 02:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Addendum to comment
- AMG lists the album. AMG is a reliable source, per Wikipedia. AMG lists at least one person, Matt Walker, that is notable. AMG has a review of the album up on iTunes.Huntress829 21:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Reply by Lee Nysted: Thank you for clearing the AMG thing up, C.H. AMG does not have to "review," but they did. Stewart Mason wrote a review and it is up all over the world. The most visible place is iTunes. I believe I am, by rights, an editor and user here, as is C. H., and anyone that uses Wikipedia. I am reviewing the article and making changes that should qualify the article for inclusion. That is what editors are supposed to do. This group seems more intent on not allowing information, than in trying to get at the truth. The truth is like water...it will come out and it will find a level. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 20:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- I can't find a review by Stewart Mason on either iTunes or AMG, and a google of "Stewart Mason Lee Nysted" doesn't turn up any reviews. Static Universe talk|contribs 21:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Mr Nysted, Wikipedia is not about truth, and especially not about The TruthTM, it is about what is verifiable from reliable secondary sources and stated from a neutral point of view. Your point of view, by definition, is not neutral. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] COMMENT:
Please refrain from deleting my replies and comments. I am an editor and after 6 months of being here, I have as much time as many of you. I will defend an article that was up long before many of you arrived here. (Not written by me.)Please refrain from being condescending and, please leave out the "I cannot find routine."
I have provided everything required of any article, per Wikipedia rules guidelines, reliability tests, criteria, etc. I will post dozens of links to sites all over the free world to show you that my music is out there.
- 1. Start with THE ORCHARD.com link. Go to "digital partners." There you will find 14,000+ partners that are carrying my C.D. Amazon is one of the dealers.
- 2. Go back to the article. I will start releasing threads. Most reviews are copywritten, so you may have to join sites. I will not post copywritten material, that I do not own. The main review on iTunes is copywritten and must be viewed there.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 02:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Lee Nystedhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 02:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- 3. Tomorrow, 1-24-07, I will request that Clear Channel / Stephen Dewart / C.H. ( the authors) take over. I do not have time for this. Lee.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 02:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- 4. THE GOOD NEWS: We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. I believe all the editors here, including me, should be able to put an article out that will satisfy all of the requirements and guidelines essential to Wikipedia's role in the world as a source of reliable information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 05:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Your comments weren't deleted, there were moved to the discussion page, which is the appropriate place for side discussion. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 02:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Mr. Dodge.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 05:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Bill W. Smith ! For helping to edit and clean up links; for your help. I regret that only a couple of editors came back after the edits and additions, thus far. For those of you that have helped to clean up the article, I say, thank you. I would like the administrator that does the final clean-up for entry to please tell me what links he/she wants from foreign sources. "The Experience" is now getting picked up by CLEAR much more in Asia, as well as, Central Europe. Thanks. C.H. C.H.Huntress829 15:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Huntress829 15:37, 24 January 2007 (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.
- 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pilots for 9/11 Truth
 |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
- - (View AfD)
Pilots for 9/11 Truth is simply not notable. It's run by a member ("JohnDoeX") of the Loose Change Forum who deflected and started his own web forum. While I know about this "group", because I have followed the Loose Change forum, blogs, etc, there lack any reliable sources that mention this "group". --Aude (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The article lacks evidence of notability and lacks reliable independent sources. Edison 15:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom and Edison above. Tom Harrison Talk 15:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I wondered about this article's appearance in the templates. No vote at this time, but I doubt there's any press coverage or members who are active pilots. One of the debunkers of the Journal of 9/11 Truth was a military and civilian pilot, and his comments may me wonder how any pilot whose license is current could believe the "no plane" theories or that the planes couldn't have been "stolen" and flown by terrorists in the sense of the mainstream account. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- I guess that is why you misunderstand the Truth Movement, you ally the fringe to the center. Kind of like saying Southern Baptists beliefs are all the normal Conservative beliefs as well. Try not to stereotype people and groups in the future. --Nuclear
Zer017:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)- I apologize for saying there are no legitimate pilots in the organization, even though I still believe it's accurate. That has no place in Wikipedia. (My delete vote still stands, because it's just not WP:Notable.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- I guess that is why you misunderstand the Truth Movement, you ally the fringe to the center. Kind of like saying Southern Baptists beliefs are all the normal Conservative beliefs as well. Try not to stereotype people and groups in the future. --Nuclear
- Delete - I have felt concern about this group because it appears to focus only on the idea that a commercial jet didn't hit the Pentagon, while not even making a serious case that is definative or scientific. The group says "it is impossible for this aircraft to have struck down the light poles." This implies that the lightpoles in front of the Pentagon came down in some other manner, which there is zero evidence for, or that their (NTSB) data is flawed. Many witnesses reported seeing a large jet and many analyses have shown that it indeed COULD have taken down the lightpoles, so I'm concerned about the poor quality of research this site is promoting while using the title "pilots" to suggest expertise. The most one can determine is that the data they used to reach their conclusions is wrong, but they don't even suggest this or any other conclusion from what I can tell. bov 21:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC) 21:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Regardless of what they stand for, or their methods, this is a non-notable group with no verifiable information in the article. Fails WP:WEB in addition to the rest. -- Kesh 02:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Gets exactly "1" hit in Google News Search for the Free Market News Network in Florida, which means it fails our WP:NN tests. I have to thank Ombudsman for creating this one though, so that we could delete it -- I was beginning to lose interest in Wikipedia : ) Morton DevonshireYo 05:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable, unverifiable, and looks like advertising. WarpstarRider 14:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, this article and site should be viewed within the context of the 9/11 Truth movement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth_Movement Compare the core membership list below with the names listed within the wikipedia article above. Viewed within that context, Pilots for 9/11 Truth is new, yes, but hardly non notable, based on core membership, the forum which it has given birth to and sites which link to it. Here's a small hint for verification purposes: you can use the civil aviation registry https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/airmeninquiry/ to verify some of the information on the core members list (though not all, since not all of the core members are US pilots). Yes, it really is an international organization, and yes it does include pilots and other aviation professionals within its membership. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/ http://www.v911t.org/ http://patriotsquestion911.com/ http://www.davidicke.com/content/view/5157/33/ http://www.realradioarchives.com/sound-1.htm http://www.physics911.net/ http://911scholars.org/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nine eleven researcher (talk • contribs) 04:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC).— Nine eleven researcher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
-
- Comment: None of the sites you mention meet the reliability requirements of Wikipedia, as they are pro-conspiracy advocacy sites, and David Icke is the Reptilian humanoid dude. Morton DevonshireYo 05:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete NN and not likely they ever will be.--MONGO 06:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment: None of the sites you mention meet the reliability requirements of Wikipedia, as they are pro-conspiracy advocacy sites, and David Icke is the Reptilian humanoid dude. Morton DevonshireYo 05:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Comment: yes, I'm sure that the official theory apologists sincerely hope that the entire 9/11_Truth_Movement dries up and blows away...
-
-
- No way, we'd miss out on all of the mini-nukes blew-up the Towers crapola pumped-out for profit by dental materials engineers like Judy Wood and Distinguished Emeritus Blowhards like James Fetzer who believe that "space beams" were used. Wouldn't quash that for all of the tea in China -- too entertaining. Morton Devonshire 06:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Then why worry about Pilots for Truth, with honorary members Robert_M._Bowman, David_Ray_Griffin and Steven_E._Jones in addition to all of the aviation professionals and researchers associated with Pilots_for_9/11_Truth? It's all part of the fun, right?Nine Eleven Researcher 06:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Honorary members are irrelevant. They may not even know they're "honorary members". (They're also not mentioned in the article, so that it's clear that you don't think they're relevant)— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Then why worry about Pilots for Truth, with honorary members Robert_M._Bowman, David_Ray_Griffin and Steven_E._Jones in addition to all of the aviation professionals and researchers associated with Pilots_for_9/11_Truth? It's all part of the fun, right?Nine Eleven Researcher 06:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- No way, we'd miss out on all of the mini-nukes blew-up the Towers crapola pumped-out for profit by dental materials engineers like Judy Wood and Distinguished Emeritus Blowhards like James Fetzer who believe that "space beams" were used. Wouldn't quash that for all of the tea in China -- too entertaining. Morton Devonshire 06:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Strong Keep - Pilots For 9/11 Truth is in its infancy. So far they have analyzed the Flight Data Recorder as provided by the National Transportation Safety Board and have recorded calls to the NTSB and FBI trying to get answers. Its no wonder why some govt loyalists here would like to have this credible article/organization ripped from Wiki. Anyone interested in the credibility of the organization can look at their member list and cross check with the FAA database at faa.gov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.95.203 (talk • contribs)
- Strong Keep - "JohndoeX" is Robert Balsamo. He has flown over 20 years and is listed as the first member on their member list. It's obvious the original poster who created this article of deletion has not done his homework. Rob Balsamo and Glen Stanish (A current Continental Pilot) are the Founders of pilotsfor911truth.org. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.95.203 (talk • contribs)
- keep: Per above; no need to further suppress serious efforts to question authority. Ombudsman 07:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- delete per Ombudsman; the evidence above does not support any notability. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
"Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by a third party source." National in scope should be verifiable using the FAA Civil Aviation Registry, if someone cares to do so. He or she could also contact the public figures listed as core members. If further proof of international scope is really needed, I suppose we pilots for truth forum members could all descend here with our different IP addresses, but you wouldn't really like that... in other words, just because "mainstream media" coverage is somewhat lacking on certain issues, that does not mean an organization cannot be considered notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nine eleven researcher (talk • contribs) 09:03, January 21, 2007 (UTC)
-
- "National in scope" could clearly not be verified even by using the FAA Civil Aviation Registry, even if accurate. No information on any notable members now in the article, and I'm not going to research whether an organization is notable if you're not willing to give evidence of notability in the article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Efforts should be made to improve content, not outright deletion, give the article some time to develop. This can be notable in the context of the 911 truth movement. Killroy4 11:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Several webcomics we've deleted were notable within their fandoms. That's irrelevant. This is talking about notability outside that small community, which this group does not have. -- Kesh 16:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
STRONG KEEP - Pilots For 9/11 Truth isn't notable?? There research on the flight data recorder of American 77 is flawed?? Are you kidding me? Have these people even bothered to look at the members list on the actual website or bothered to examine the Flight Data Recorder of American Airlines Flight 77 for more than five minutes? If so, they'd realize that not only is the NTSB's animation of American 77 too high during it’s approach to the Pentagon, it's also too far north to have taken out the light posts.
Question: If the NTSB's CSV file(hard data) on American 77 shows that hijacker Hani Hanjour reset the barometric pressure as he plummeted through 18,000, why does the altimeter on the NTSB animation not indicate this reset with a snapback of the altimeter hand? Question: Why did the NTSB release a flight data recorder showing that the yoke(steering wheel) was never pulled back on to level off the aircraft's final approach to the Pentagon in direct contradiction to what we've all been told(and shown through DoD pictures) for last five years that American 77 flew parallel to the ground just prior to impact? Question: Why is the vertical speed from the flight data recorder in total contradiction of the government’s account of American 77’s final approach?
This is NOT conspiracy theory as the mission statement of Pilots For 9/11 Truth specifically avoids theory. Instead, these are serious questions that are deliberately being ignored by the FBI and NTSB regarding a government-released piece of evidence from September 11, 2001. The burden of proof is NOT on Pilots For 9/11 Truth to explain what happened to American 77. The burden of proof is on the NTSB who released a contradictory piece of evidence that goes against the government's account of the fate of American 77 that the world has been spoon-fed for the last five year. Why is that so difficult to comprehend?
Check out their movie about American 77’s Flight Data Recorder here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8672066571196607580&hl=en
-Gideon524 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.2.26 (talk • contribs)
Delete according to the article, "Pilots For 9/11 Truth is currently in its infancy" i.e. it's not yet notable. Derex 18:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not notable - considering anyone at anytime can edit anything they want on any article. Delete for Wikipedia in general. Anyone who references wiki on any forum is usually laughed at. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.84.95.203 (talk • contribs) 20:38, January 21, 2007 (UTC)
- Sooooo... if Wikipedia's so not notable, why do the 9/11 Truth types fight so incredibly hard over everything here? Why are you here? Delete as per Derex and lack of reliable sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Pilots For Truth sources the National Transportation Safety Board and FBI (as noted in the recorded calls on their site). Tony thinks those sources are unreliable. Many in the 9/11 Truth movement would agree. The Flight Data Recorder provided by the NTSB is unreliable to the govt story as it is in direct conflict with the 9/11 Commission Report. Pilots For Truth exposes these conflicts. It seems some people here want to sweep the facts under the rug. Then again, anyone who references wiki knows its a place for bias and editing at will. Better off to go to the source site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.84.95.203 (talk • contribs) 19:07, January 22, 2007 (UTC)
-
- ... um, actually, by "reliable sources" I mean the complete lack of this kind of reliable sources, the verifiable kind. I could care less about the sources the *group* uses in relation to the article here. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Ah yes, some people will believe anything put before them in writing. The Great Moon Hoax is a prime example of this. However, this subject fails WP:NN by several criteria, one of which that it doesn’t even attract enough audience to where it constitutes having an article here. Therefore, delete. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 04:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Another cracker jack researcher comparing the Flight Data Recorder provided by the National Transportation Safety board to the Moon Hoax (perhaps he wanted to compare it to Elvis or Bigfoot as well, but didnt want to disrespect the NTSB). Do your research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.153.105.229 (talk • contribs) 03:39, January 25, 2007
- Delete As others have noted, article totally fails to demonstrate any notability. CWC(talk) 09:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Only sources seem to be from self-published sources, violating WP:V. "You're all sheep" not a valid argument for keeping. - Ocatecir 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete not notable -- Selmo (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
-Comment - I see we have another cracker jack researcher calling for delete. Several articles on the site reference mainstream media, the FBI, the NTSB and the 9/11 Commission Report. The site and forums get over 300,000 hits per month in its short existence so far.. and growing. As the owner and co-founder of the site, I would prefer when people reference our site, they reference the site itself instead of Wiki as Wiki is open to any type of edit from anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.153.105.229 (talk • contribs) 03:50, January 25, 2007
- First, stop with the insulting comments. You are violating WP:ATTACK as well as WP:CIVIL. Second, if you are involved in the site, there is a potential conflict of interest here. And finally, Wikipedia is made to be edited by anyone for a reason. If you refuse to cite anything but your own website, you are not following Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you do not wish Wikipedia to be referenced, it may be best to allow the article to be deleted. There is no ownership of these articles, and they will be edited by neutral third-parties. -- Kesh 15:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete NN per nom Tbeatty 04:51, 25 January 2007 (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.
- 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 Speedy delete. Well investigated and thought out nom, which sums up the situation very accurately. I've just been through all the google results myself. No need to salt at the moment. This movement may become notable. User:Well1234567 has been indef blocked as a sock of User:Artopp. Tyrenius 04:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
|
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
[edit] NeoPopRealism
- - (View AfD)
The claims to a "world-wide" movement are suspect. There is only one artist listed as a neopoprealist, Nadia Russ, who already has a page. This is not a dispute over her notability as an artist, but the questionable importance of a one-person art movement started in 2003. The only other artist mentioned uses the term "neopoprealism" once on his personal website with no indication of affiliation with Ms. Russ. The references all lead back to Nadia Russ' webpage, wikipedia, or discussion groups in which Ms. Russ belongs, as do any google searches, or are ads purchased in art magazine classified sections. There is no evidence of any notablity in this movement. Perhaps this can be merged with Ms. Russ' page, but even then it should only be a brief sentence. Freshacconci 20:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please also note that the creation of the article on NeoPopRealism has been written exclusively by contribs, who has made no other wiki contributions, and who by her own words has established the "concept" of NeoPopRealism as a product. Wikipedia is not a forum for advertising. Her words from the discussion page:
-
- I was working in Art field for many years. I'm German. I know Nadia. I like NeoPR philosophy. I develope idea - "Be Beautiful". It is project "Nutrition for the Masses" We focus on non-animal meat. As I said NeoPR is wider, than just ARTs/painting. It's also health and beauty: We planning distribution by NYC license vendors with decorated hot carts-wagons on the streets & elegant casual dresses. I hired two such vendors to start selling crop meat in strategic popular special places in Manhattan. They'll be working from 9 am to 7 pm. The product purchased from important food US companies, who subsidiaries makes crop meat of all discriptions ready to go & prepared for the vendor and his grill. We'll charge no more than $1.99 for such "hefty minute meal" sandwich, for busy New Yorker. We'll include a fruit drink as well. . It's what we doing for humanity now. Health is beauty. Beauty is NeoPR.
- Speedy delete and salt. Freshacconci 20:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Please check the following B. Murphy website, who works in NeoPR style. It's mentioned on the buttom of the following page: http://billmurphy.com/Biography.htm Also many other people and companies accepted NeoPopR and its ideas worldwide. For example French psychologist Jean-pier Royol uses her, N. Russ art in his art therapy. Please check his website: http://www.mylinea.com/search3.php?mc=nadia+russ&dir_ident=artherapie&newsites=
NJ artists accepted NeoPR style/movement: http://www.webspawner.com/users/newjerseyarts
It's enough info. Well1234567 01.20.2007 — Well1234567 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Please delete this article. There is nothing of substance said about art in the manifesto-like writing in this article, or, for that matter, in the article on Nadia Russ. There is no substantial citation for the entity being referred to as "NeoPopRealism." Bus stop 17:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Only obfuscation is being employed to defend the inclusion of this article on Wikipedia. What do the referred to New York City licensed decorated vendor carts, elegant dresses, and crop meat products have to do with either art or art movements? The sole defender of the article claims to have worked in the art field for many years. If so, that person should be able to explain a point of view better than is seen in the above entry by User: Well1234567. Bus stop 21:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete This "article" is nonsense. There is no justification for it being here. The gibberish being referred to is supposed to be "wider, than just ARTs/painting." Fine -- then what is it? This particular art movement is supposed to have been employed by the casino industry. How? If it can't even be described, and if it has no valid sources, it should be deleted right away. Bus stop 15:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The so-called sources are trivial or self published. Bus stop 07:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Bus stop 07:01, 25 January 2007 (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.
![[31]](http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/2139/poporseu3.gif){kind=link}
![[32]](http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/301/133ra.jpg){kind=link}
![[41]](http://cinemassacre.com/Movies/Nes_Nerd/exray.jpg){kind=link}