Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shiny Diamonds controversy

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 merge links to Criticism of Wikipedia. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 06:08Z

[edit] The Shiny Diamonds controversy

The Shiny Diamonds controversy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is a rather strange case. It's an article about a prior AfD and a Washington Post article on AfD generally that leads with the aforementioned AfD specifically. One source doesn't quite cut it for most notability considerations, and I don't think a write-up in the Post makes it a "controversy" per se. The article is quite well written and flawlessly formatted, but it, like the band, is not notable enough to be included in wikipedia. Kchase T 03:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn I am now in agreement with Antepenultimate's point below that the news links, at the very least, ought to be merged into the Criticism article. There's not really a section of the Criticism article that covers the criticism the Foundation Office is getting phone calls about all the time: that Wikipedia's notability guidelines disallow a compendium of all human knowledge. Though we usually hear about this criticism here in deletion discussions on Wikipedia, the media has started covering it enough that a general mention at the article is appropriate. I don't agree with this criticism, but that doesn't matter. Please note that, per WP:SK a withdrawn nomination doesn't close a discussion.--Kchase T 21:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. One Washington Post article does not a controversy make. -Amarkov blahedits 03:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - for now - This article is approximately one day old and has a single editor with a brief edit history. If this is an actual controversy, we should wait and see if the article develops. I suspect that, since the original band article was deleted, nobody will come looking for an article about the deletion of another article. But, we should give it 2 weeks and see what happens. The story could get picked up by more media outlets which might increase attention. - Justin (Authalic) 04:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • If other newspapers were going to pick the story up, they would have in two weeks. Nobody will care now, even if anyone cared then. -Amarkov blahedits 04:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
That would be crystal ballism and is covered under WP:NOT. If it does become notable then an article may be warranted but I don't think we should keep it just in case. --67.68.152.133 05:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - a non-notable "controversy" about a non-notable band. Otto4711 04:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Self-referential, original research (all that guff about import of WP guidelines) and an obvious back-door attempt to get mention of the deleted group back into WP. Just kill it. --Calton | Talk 05:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, a non-notable "controversy" about a non-notable band and back-door attempt to get mention... into WP pretty much sums it up. In the end, one article in the paper does not meet the "multiple, non-trivial" aspect of WP:RS... indeed, it is just one example provided, and is not the subject of the article. In the end, it is self-referential and unencyclopedic. And the solution for a deleted article is WP:DRV, not to create another article that is indirectly about it. Rather than generating a stink about it in the Post (was it even in the print version, or just online?), might I suggest the band focus its energy on meeting WP:RS? --Kinu t/c 06:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Why didn't they quote me? :( MER-C 06:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The band's AFD is provided as an example, not as the focus of the article. There is no "controversy" to speak of. --Dhartung | Talk 07:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Survey says: Drop dead! Sorry Tim the Mute, this Internet-snob wiki-geek deems your band, and your whinging to the Post, non-notable. FiggyBee, who isn't notable either but is quite okay with that. 07:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as attempt to "bootstrap" an article on the band onto Wikipedia on the grounds that they were mentioned in a newspaper article about Wikipedia's deletion process. (I believe that the article was syndicated to various newspapers, but that does not justify this article.) The "controversy" does not seem to exist outside the band itself. Article violates the guideline of avoiding self-reference. Note that if the band manages to satisfy one or more WP:MUSIC criteria, they can have an article, but I would support blocking anyone who tries to take this self-reference any further by creating The Shiny Diamonds controversy controversy or anything like that. --Metropolitan90 07:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • As an aside, if this article manages to get kept, move it to The Shiny Diamonds instead. --Metropolitan90 06:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, utterly non-notable, bunch of unverifiable piece of work with no reliable sources. No encyclopedic at all, total original research, nothing more or less. Terence Ong 07:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, OR, V, etc. SkierRMH 08:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Some day, when the band itself is notable, might be of interest, but right now, as noted, clear "bootstrapping." Robertissimo 09:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. "cut it"! "flawless"! anybody? anybody? oh well :) Deizio talk 15:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Boooooo... :P. --Kinu t/c 16:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Hey, don't boo me.. Kchase wins "Best subtle AfD nomination punnery / gaggery insertion" for December 06 :) Deizio talk 17:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Evidently, the best puns are unintended.--Kchase T 02:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, modesty? :) I'd be claiming it even if it was coincidental. Deizio talk 02:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

*Delete. Ironically, this desperate attempt to circumnavigate a page protected from re-creation didn't get speedied. I see the thought process that went into this one going something like this: "Hmm, how else can I get a link to my band's MySpace page on Wikipedia?" -- Antepenultimate 17:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Additional sources = change in vote, see below. -- Antepenultimate 10:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Wait for more responses. As I know the author is in no way promoting the band, but rather providing a discourse on the development of Wikipedia, I believe that we need to give the post more time to develop. Jusher99 21:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • We can't keep articles on the grounds that more sources for them might be created eventually. If they don't exist now, it gets deleted now, and can be recreated when the sources are created. -Amarkov blahedits 22:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The WashPo article is duly listed under Wikipedia:Press coverage; the Shiny Diamonds article is only his lead example in a long article on notability. If the particular example is used elsewhere, a new WP article can be written. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Criticisms of Wikipedia. Just H 23:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • And why is some random guy complaining about how we're not sharing our webspace with any subject a notable criticism? -Amarkov blahedits 23:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure. You're a random guy, you're complaining about me not sharing your opinion, why is what you are saying notable? Just H 23:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
      • It isn't. Note how it isn't in an article. -Amarkov blahedits 23:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
      • You're saying that what you're saying to me isn't notable? Please clarify. In my comment, The article on this article was deleted and protected already, which was why the Post newspaper article was created. thus putting it in criticisms of wikipedia works for me if it isn't enough for an article on its own, because this would help that article. Just H 23:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
        • And I'm saying that wouldn't help the article, because including criticisms by just some guy who happens to have a non-notable band is bad. It's not our obligation to provide as much criticism as the database will hold on a "Criticism of X" article. -Amarkov blahedits 23:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
          • That's your perogative. You're entitled to yours and i'm entitled to mine. It appears we will not convince each other, so we'll just have to agree to disagree. Just H 23:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment The article's creator has added a few more sources: [1], [2].--Kchase T 00:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Not a "controversy," just one article in the Post. Apparently this was also mentioned in a blog. This and $1.25 gets you a cup of coffee. JChap2007 01:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Help. Hi everyone, thank you for helping me improve the article by providing information here on this delete page. Thank you in particular to Amarkov, Justin (Authalic), Metropolitan90, Robertissimo, PMAnderson, and Just H. I just got out of an interview with CBC Radio One. They did a segment on "The Shiny Diamonds Controversy" after they read the Washington Post article. Just so you know, I have never met anyone in the Shiny Diamonds band before... in fact I just heard their music for the first time today (on myspace). I live in Paris, they live in Vancouver. You can google me if you don't believe me. I'm just very passionate about keeping this type of information in wikipedia. It makes me sad to think of wikipedia as the sum of SOME human knowledge. Can someone help me out with improving the page so that it is less likely to be deleted. I don't even know how to reference a radio broadcast. I could really use some help. Thank you in advance. Leigh8959 03:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • But if I thought that a rewrite could possibly make this good enough to keep, I wouldn't have said to delete, and I probably would have rewritten it enough to establish notability. But there is no controversy, therefore there aren't sources, therefore no rewrite could make it better. -Amarkov blahedits 05:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The citation template for radio broadcasts can be found at Template:Cite episode if that will help. --Metropolitan90 05:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I actually think if there's a radio interview on this issue (raising the number of sources to three) that would probably be enough to keep it. Even if it gets deleted this round, there's always deletion review after the show airs. We'll see what happens; I'm waiting to hear more.--Kchase T 05:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I heard about this whole thing on the radio this afternoon and thought it was interesting enough to start up a Wiki page for. It's not even really an issue or news but if these guys were talked about on CBC Radio 1, which is as relevant as it gets for Canadian broadcast, it warrants a mention either in their own page or a 'Shiny Diamonds Controversy' page. I looked on Google and there are dozens of articles quoting or elaborating on the whole thing. I liked what the guy in Paris said about the sum of all knowledge. If the internet has fairly limitless potential, why should Wikipedia users be waging some sort of battle against this very Wikipedia-related issue being mentioned on the site? It's all very strange and I expect to see more news articles popping up daily about this, as they seem to have been doing for weeks now.--Mercury0T 07:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC) — Mercury0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Changing vote to Merge news article links with Criticism of Wikipedia, under "dated links." Let's not lose our sense of perspective here: To call this a true controversy, or to even say that Shiny Diamonds is the main focus of these articles, is misleading. They are being used as a current example (one of many, it should be noted) for an opinion article, and they are then mentioned (very briefly) in another editorial (about the original opinion article). -- Antepenultimate 10:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.