Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathaniel Street-West

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. --Coredesat 00:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nathaniel Street-West

Nathaniel Street-West (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Artist has sketchy notability (As I noted on the articles discussion page, a section on iTunes does not constitute notability). Fails WP:MUSIC. Article also lacks heavily in the third party sources department. A PROD was added by a different user and then removed my myself in favour of deletion a couple of days later. It must be noted that the article would require a strong write up if to become neutral. And it appears as though there has been suspicious activity involving numerous newly registered users editing the article. On more than one occasion these/a user(s) admitted to WP:COI which, in my opinion, has detrimentally effected the article beyond economical repair. Scarian^Talk 10:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - The article is full of red links, and many of those that are blue just link to disambig. articles, with the article in question rarely making an appearance. This section is rather poor and indicatednon-notability. External links are either YouTube or MySpace, and again indicate non-notability. Lradrama 12:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Appears to be COI-type spam, reads like a press release and the original version was much worse, with peacock terms galore and grandiose claims. Be on the lookout for sock activity and incivility here, as it has already started on the article's talk page. -- But|seriously|folks  18:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - COI self-promo of an NN subject. Peter Fleet 18:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Most of what is cited above is just plain incorrect. I find it difficult to believe that the parties involved in the delete recommendations have actually read the entire article and related talk history between the involved editors. One lone editor placed the tags on this article (Butseriouslyfolks)and until 24 hours ago his or her side of the dispute had no support from any other editors. Despite my repeated attempts to kindly dispute Butseriouslyfolk's claims, tags, and unfounded charges, and despite my attempts to compliment this person on the work he or she is doing to help the Street-West editors create a better article and on his or her work to keep Wiki standards high, he or she has rapidly escalated the dispute despite my urging that Butseriouslyfolks follow Wiki protocol in the case of a dispute. The number one recommendation is that the editors give each other the benefit of the doubt and agree to take some time off from the dispute and yet he aggressively and seemingly maliciously has proceeded to escalate the dispute by placing the Delete tag. This is when I began to think that this must be someone's attempt at vandalism, someone with an ax to grind against the subject of the article. Early on in this dispute Butseriouslyfolks did edit the article which did nothing to improve it and then proceeded to make outrageous charges about COI. He has made repeated personal charges against Street-West editors and yet seems to think that I have no right to my own suspicions regarding Butseriouslyfolks own suspicious behavior.Due to the COI tag that was placed very recently the article is still in the process of a major text overhaul, despite the fact that the COI tag had nothing to do with the text of the article. In point, this quote from Scarian above (he is quoting from Butseriouslyfolks here) : "On more than one occasion these/a user(s) admitted to WP:COI" shows that neither this editor (Scarian) or Butseriouslyfolks did a proper review of the actual circumstances, as it (the COI tag) refers only to a mistake in the uploading of the article's photographs. I had made a request to the record company of the subject of this article for photographs and the employees made a mistake in their upload protocol. That's all folks! No conspiracy to push a worthless artist on the public, no conspiracy to skew the article towards personal gain or any other situation that indicates need for a COI tag. What am I supposed to think when repeated attempts to patiently and thoroughly explain to Butseriouslyfolks the circumstances involving mistaken photo uploads gets spun into a fictitious personal attack on my character involving COI? Due to the complaints that the writing does not fit the Wikipedia standards, I have been working and I've noticed that other editors have been working diligently to attempt to bring the Street-West article up to Wiki rules. If any of you have checked the Street-West article in the past few day you will see that many new source materials have been added. The article is very much still in progress in attempts to fit Wiki protocol (including the photograph situation which should be remedied by within several days.) The article is still in progress and this dispute must be solved. Editor Scarian writes "Artist has sketchy notability (As I noted on the articles discussion page, a section on iTunes does not constitute notability). Fails WP:MUSIC. Article also lacks heavily in the third party sources department." Again he or she is simply incorrect. Nathaniel Street-West easily meets the criteria for WP:MUSIC guidelines. The subject of the article is quite influential in the music community as any of you who are interested will see as the newly edited article becomes thoroughly documented. His or her quote here on "a section on iTunes does not constitute notability" is really uncalled for and certainly does not apply to this subject.Lradrama|drama writes above: "Childhood This section is rather poor and indicated non-notability]. External links are either YouTube or MySpace, and again indicate non-notability." The childhood section is in rewrite to scrupulously meet Wiki standards and like I said above other editors have been editing this article, some for the better, some for the worse. And he or she again is incorrect to say that most of the external links are to YouTube or MySpace. Most are to ALLMUSIC GUIDE, ASCAP ACE Title Search, and so forth.Butseriouslyfolks in his post above writes: "Appears to be COI-type spam, reads like a press release and the original version was much worse, with peacock terms galore and grandiose claims. Be on the lookout for sock activity and incivility here, as it has already started on the article's talk page." I believe you are all decent folks and can see that here alone in this quote that the editors of the Street-West article are not being given the most basic of Wiki's pleas for civility: to use the benefit of doubt in assuming good will on the behalf of other editors until PROVEN otherwise. Butseriouslyfolks is assuming that Street-West editors are going to bowl y'all over with "sock activity and incivility", I urge all of you to go back and read his previous posts if you want to see "sock activity and incivility". I truly am worried about vandalism and an overly aggressive series of groundless attacks by someone with an ax to grind,. This is a very serious matter and Butseriouslyfolks's overall tone again and again appears to stoop to incivility. Making personal charges against an editor is a serious matter and the COI tag as he or she expresses it here is a slap at my character and good name. The original article was written by a creative writer who is very knowledgeable about all of the reliable, third-party information available on the subject of the article and made an attempt to walk the tightrope between creating an interesting article while also sticking with "facts and nothing but the facts" verifiable by proper sources. When I contacted the record company to try to get more interesting photographs, the source (Street-West) and the people who work with him were hearing nothing but compliments on the writing of the article. The usual comments (and there apparently were hundreds) that were fed back to them were as such: "Best Wikipedia article I've ever read". It now reads like a press release (1) because it is serious rewrite, and (2) because the creative parts were removed in response to Butseriouslyfolks aggressive behavior and due to other editor's attempts go bend over backwards to stick to Wiki rules. I am a busy student, have considered the article a work in progress, and simply could not come to grips with the unending pages of complex Wikipedia "legalese" which often reads as if editors need a law degree to dot every "i" and cross every "t" that Wiki requires.PennyLane100 01:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC) — PennyLane100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PennyLane100. -- But|seriously|folks  05:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't respond to the entire post above, because I frankly do not have time to analyze it all. I do want to mention that the suggestion that I am the only editor that has challenged this article until the last 24 hours is just plain wrong. The original version of this article, written by the same author, was tagged for speedy deletion by BigHaz on September 29, 2006. It was deleted later that day by Sarah with the comment "A7". It was reposted by the author about 20 minutes later. It was tagged for deletion again (albeit improperly) by Deon555 on September 30th, 2006. Maintenance tags were added by 17Drew last month. It was prodded by an IP a couple of days ago, at which point Scarian, who later upgraded the prod to this AfD, added comments to the talk page opining that there was a serious WP:N problem with this article. All of this took place prior to 24 hours ago.

By the way, PennyLane100, you never answered the question I left on your talk page. Who is "our webmaster" you mentioned, and what website is s/he master of? -- But|seriously|folks  02:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

My point exactly. I didn't have time to write it either. I would have answered your "webmaster" question had I read your message. Did I say "our webmaster"? Hmn... Since I like to do a lot of creative stuff on the web, such as website design, I have a friend who works on my computer when something goes wrong. He knows a lot about the more technical stuff so I call on him when I can't figure stuff out — which is most of the time it seems of late. He can read and explain the Wikipedia "legalese" at times when I am completely stumped. I call him my webmaster.

Why are you so suspicious? Do you really think there is a big bad conspiracy going on here? I guess I think of him as "ours" because all my other friends call him up too. He is also our keymaster... :) Hey, let's just drop this thing. What do you say? If time is on my side I will be able to get away from this "editing war"(the one that began around Oct 1, 2007, instigated by yourself) and actually help make the article what it should be. If I have anything to say about the article every single phrase will be numbered and footnoted, just like my graduate thesis. Please, please give it a rest for a reasonable time so I can work on the article and not on defending the article's right to exist. The article should speak for itself. This will probably surprise you, but I almost never read the mail associated with my Wiki account until I saw your tags at the top of the page, so you did manage to get my attention. I notice quite a few new editors working on the article. Hopefully they are better at figuring this stuff out than me.:)PennyLane100 03:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I am suspicious because, unlike many other articles here, this one has a decidedly promotional bent, and also because you are very persistent with regard to this article but have no edits to other articles. I am required to initially assume that you are acting in good faith and, since you have denied it, that you have no particular connection to the subject. However, in my experience, people who edit in this manner usually have a conflict of interest. Also, to your credit, there's no edit war at this article, i.e., editors have not been reverting each other in a back and forth fashion. So your request for page protection was not appropriate. Moreover, if the article was protected, you wouldn't be able to fix the problems that led to this Afd, and it would almost certainly be deleted.

I will not respond to your allegations of sockpuppetry and axe-grinding at WP:RPP. They are obviously unfounded. -- But|seriously|folks  03:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep - As the Nathaniel Street-West article is apparently being diligently rewritten to meet the important standards of Wiki, and since many of the charges made against the article itself, against the subject of the article and against the Street-West editors themselves are patently false, the article must be left in place. Soon, if everyone involved follows Wiki’s regulations for Wikipedia:Dispute resolution this unfortunate dispute should be easily brought to an agreeable conclusion for all.The facts are clearly in dispute and the editor(s?) who initiated this particular dispute around October 2007 and who have aggressively kept it going, have consistently failed to follow the Wiki guidelines for how to handle a dispute, as outlined as official policy in the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution article. Avoidance is the first step advised, taking some time to allow things to cool down, and under this title Wiki guidelines clearly state: do not make personal attacks. Several Street-West editors repeatedly asked the involved editor(s?) to drop their aggressive tactics, to change the uncivil tone of their posts, and to follow the Wiki policies for dispute resolution, including Avoidance and yet the involved editor(s?) appeared to ignore these requests entirely.Under the title What is considered a personal attack?, Wiki’s guidelines in the Wikipedia:No personal attacks article lists "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views - regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme” as one of the major examples of what makes up a personal attack. However as PennyLane100 so eloquently addresses in the very long post above on this page, other editor(s?) involved assumed a WP:COI charge based on their suspicions that editors of the Street-West article were somehow guilty by some sort of imagined association. These aggressive, conflict initiating editor(s?) made personal charge after personal charge, continuing to “insult and disparage” the characters of Street-West editors. As Wiki guidelines further state within the Wikipedia:No personal attacks article: "These examples are not exclusive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." If the simple, friendly behavior that Wiki demands had been followed by the initiating editor(s?) in this case, this dispute could have been either avoided all together or quickly brought to an agreeable conclusion. Hopefully everyone has learned something from this and Wiki will grow stronger and more compassionate as a result.

Note:I use the term editor(s?) here repeatedly because most of the problems appear to be associated with one editor, the person who initiated the current incident around October 1, 2007. There are 2 or 3 editors with some questionable actions who came into the dispute very recently although their participation has been very limited. I want to stress here that by far most of the people involved in Wiki disputes appear to abide by the guidelines. In my limited experience this seems to be a rather isolated incident. I want to take this opportunity to say thank you to those editors who have offered their kind help and advice to those editors engaged in rehabilitating the Street-West article. Dylanharvey 02:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC) — Dylanharvey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PennyLane100. -- But|seriously|folks  05:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Struck -- User has been indefblocked as a sockpuppet of PennyLane100. -- But|seriously|folks  18:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Where do you get "several" from? There's only one editor actively writing the article (using two usernames and an IP), and only that editor has objected to the attempts by at least three other editors to resolve the problems with this article. -- But|seriously|folks  02:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Dylanharvey's keep should be struck and indented. Scarian^Talk 17:28, 26 October 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.