Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moonlander

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. While this is an obscure subject, it appears to minimally meet the notability standards. Alabamaboy 18:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moonlander

Moonlander (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Complete incomplete nom. Housekeeping only. Claim of WP:NN. No recommendation. Evb-wiki 04:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Next week Pitchforkmedia publishes a big article about this topic, so this nomination is a bit too early to justice the notability. Give it one week. Also justice without me as the contributor but for it's objectivity, verify the other refs and sources.YuriLandman 07:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article looks useful to a guitar expert or specialist. Deleting something one knows nothing about completely misses the point of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is NOT PAPER.Ryoung122 10:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment See WP:USEFUL. --Dhartung | Talk 18:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Heck I didn't even know of such a guitar! It's actually quite interesting information. And like the other guy said, Wikipedia is NOT PAPER. -Unregistered user —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.113.16 (talk • contribs) — 169.139.113.16 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep per above. Mandsford 18:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although quite interesting, an individual custom guitar is not really notable, even with a cute name. Perhaps merge with Lee Ranaldo. --Dhartung | Talk 18:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This a really cool loooking and rather unique custom made guitar by an unknown luthier.. However there are probably thousands of rather unique and really cool looking custom guitars made by luthiers who have similarly not attained any noteriety. WP:NOTABLE states: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Note the plural: sources. The only reference is to a local weekly of limited circulation. The lack of multiple sources highlights the non-notability of the subject. Another commentor notes that s/he "didn't even know of such a guitar" - the reason being that unless you are are reader of Amsterdam Weekly, the only way to learn of this guitar is on Wikipedia. I agree that it is 'quite interesting', however, the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is notability - not how interesting something is. Dlabtot 21:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
As the nominator for deletion you are not allowed to vote Delete, just like I'm not allowed to vote Keep. You wrote: However there are probably thousands of rather unique and really cool looking custom guitars made by luthiers Can you rephrase this statement. It's unsourced. There are more people who built off-size instruments, but not for a notable band like Sonic Youth. Most of these instrument only have a weird body shape and 1 or 2 extra strings, but not a completely different sound system. There aren't in fact many examples and the excisting ones are noticed at experimental musical instrument. It's not a good idea to remove all the instruments mentioned there. I've rephrased the sources to make the verification for reliability more clear and I'm working on finding more reliable sources. Spunk is reliable too by the way, because of its alliance with NRC Handelsblad. That's the 2nd source. Best Wishes,YuriLandman 06:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure this is not a vote, but a discussion. I was told by other editors that I needed to come here and state the reason I nominated the page for deletion. As far as your arguments in favor of keeping the article, your efforts at self-promotion are duly noted. Dlabtot 16:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't appreciate these words. You are not allowed to use my openess against me. I have the same rights as you have. Stick to the facts, not who's bringing them in. Are the facts sourced facts outside wikipedia or are they false? YuriLandman 19:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note - This nom is listed twice on this September 18 list. --Evb-wiki 22:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Thanks! --Dhartung | Talk 06:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge with Lee Ranaldo. Instruments can be notable if unique enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - WP:NOTABLE does not mention the 'uniqueness' of something as a criteria for notability. Otherwise we'd have an article for every snowflake. Dlabtot 18:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at the 6 sources I mentioned at Yuri Landman and the 2 at Moonlander. You are ignoring those in your reply. As far as I know an article is WP:NOTABLE when there are more then 1 reliable sources outside wikipedia. The Moonlander is only one month old and it already has 2 verifiable sources, the 3rd source is coming next week. You are complaining about self-promotion and COI, but can you specify which sentences in the articles are not neutral or unfactual? Then we can remove those words. A snowflake doesn't have 2 sources. Please do not use confusing examples, that makes the conversation hazy.
  1. Verify the 6 and 2 sources.
  2. Cut back subjectivity.

That's the way you should handle when an article is not neutral because of COI, you went to fast with this nomination. Read Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest, so we can solve this problem. I'm willing to adjust the article to a proper and clean topic. Best wishes, YuriLandman 19:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. Is Moodswinger being put for deletion as well? It has the same issues as this article and Yuri Landman, which were both put up. Rigadoun (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

For your information some equal topics. Please read them before deciding the moonlander doesn't deserve a topic. If you disagree with the content cut back the subjectivity in it. Deleting Moonlander is a poor job.

And read Experimental musical instrument, because you obviously don't know anything about experimental musical instruments. www.oddmusic.com is not a HOAX. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evan E19cm (talk • contribs) — Evan E19cm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - I only looked at the first one - Neptune - and you know what? You're right, that article doesn't belong in Wikipedia either - not notable. I don't have time to nominate for deletion but if you do, I certainly would concur. Dlabtot 22:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment on Dlabot who started this nomination. A smile, I'm not angry anymore, but this proves exactly what I write below. If we let you finish the job you will erase Rhys Chatham, Glenn Branca and Harry Partch too. Neptune needs some sources yes, it's not solid yet, but not notable is something else. The band is a signed band on Table of the Elements. Best wishes, YuriLandman 23:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment Nah. Those three are pretty safe in my opinion. They have at least two releases under a notable label (satisfying number 5). Neptune is another matter. It needs reliable sources for the international tours. If there's coverage, then it should be in good shape. -- Ben 14:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Of course, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a bogus argument anyway so the comment by the single purpose account (sure are a lot of them involved in this discussion, eh?) carries no weight. Dlabtot 21:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I checked Neptune (band) and found within one minute a source {Table of the Elements}. You are consequent calling topics without sources ready for deletion. No source yet is not a reason for deletion, first find sources and if you can find them, ask for it with {OR} or {fact}. That's the way it should go. 2nd You are ignoring sources or calling them in general unreliable. Which of the 3 sources is unreliable? Let's skip snowflakes, the topic Neptune, single purpose account or other hazy arguments. Something is notable when reliable sourced facts are found.
I've 3 sources, as far as I know they are reliable, because nobody is pointing out why they are not reliable for what specific fact I've used them.
  • the guitar is given to SY -> Spunk
  • How the guitar works -> A'dam Weekly
  • The guitar is interesting enough to be exhibited at the Output festival in the Dutch main stage of Contemporary Music (it's not a pub) -> [www.outputfestival.com/index.php?fuseaction=home.showPages&pagenr=15] YuriLandman 06:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep.. Spunk is a reputable source, I think. Association with NRC and Rothschild & Bach ([1]).--Pan Gerwazy 08:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General Announcement from Y.L.

My instruments are a bit controversial it seems. The Moodswinger is nominated a few times before in the past, every time the same story, someone doesn't believe it works ->tag [OR] or tag [COI], then after some research from experts or people familiar with experimental musical instruments or third bridge guitar cut back the tags. There are about 6 reliable sources about me and my work. You don't have to like my COI, but over and over again following this direction is a waste of time. The Moodswinger is used on Leather Prowler of the Liars' fourth album, recently released, but I don't have a internet source for this fact yet. Other reliable sources: oddmusic.com (with sound), modernguitars.com, Amsterdam Weekly, another Dutch mag. not mentioned here but I can scan it for you if you appreciate and The Dutch Rock & Pop Institute. All specified pitch string resonations are derived from String resonance (music), Third bridge, Harmonic series. What more do people need to believe my story is built on true facts? When a question raises and I'm answering it with a sourced fact or reasonable description people are accusing me of COI. I thought my info about the instruments would be educational, but people are probably looking at it differently. I guess those people are not interested in musical experimentalism and they are ruining useful information for interested musicians. That's a disappointing proces.YuriLandman 20:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No, there is no controversy whatsoever. It is a simple issue of notability. Dlabtot 21:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. if "notability" does not come in several months, then delete or merge with a section on "alternative luthiers" or somesuch. this is too fascinating to toss.

Negator 17:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC) — Negator (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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.