User talk:Drokstef/Sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Preparing article for Deletion Review 1.1 Their Name 1.2 POV Statements 1.3 YouTube as a source 1.4 Generally more sources 2 Recent edits

[edit] Preparing article for Deletion Review

Okay we need to go through all the issues in the article before we approach Deletion Review.

[edit] Their Name

The first issue is their name. If the band's name is KORD (capital letters) then their name needs to appear like that throughout the article (not "Kord"). If their name is Kord (only 'k' is Capital) then get rid of "KORD"s. Ultimately the article will be something like KORD (band), and you might be lucky -- if the new name is different to the deleted article, then we might not even need to go to Deletion Review.

[edit] POV Statements

There are also a lot of POV statements in the article. You need to either remove these or find sources for them. For example "...on the Romantica TV channel, which was very well received by public" - as an encyclopedia, we probably don't need to know that their appearance on a TV show was very well received by the public. If you want to keep this, you should find newspaper articles or magazine articles that say something about how the public liked their appearance on the TV show -- or just take this statement out.

[edit] YouTube as a source

Try find another source that they appeared on TV, if you can. I am trying to find out if YouTube can be used as a source in this case.
Solved. Provided citation to television program. Allowed.

[edit] Generally more sources

The more references we have, the better the encyclopedia article, the harder it is for the deletion-crazy users on this website to remove your article, rightfully or wrongfully.

Rfwoolf (talk) 09:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

Thanks for your note. My understanding is that whatever is in your sandbox is yours, and you don't have to put up with anyone else editing it until you are ready to post it -- people shouldn't alter your work in process. So feel free to undo everything that the other person added. (Once the page is posted, you will definitely have to put up with edits by others, as I'm sure you know, but right now it's all yours, to the best of my understanding of the relevant policy.) So express the citations any way you want to -- I've tried to fix one but my changes are also under your control in the sandbox.

As far as deletion review is concerned, you're giving me credit for a little more knowledge than I possess -- I've never been involved in taking an article to deletion review, I've merely commented on them. But when you feel this article is 100% ready, I will find out what I need to do and do it on your behalf, without taking a position on its retention.

In the meantime, I do suggest that you address the POV and reference issues noted above. I believe YouTube is a reasonable citation for the broadcast of a Romanian TV station, since not many people will have access to it otherwise, but I recommend that you make it very clear in the citation that this is a REbroadcast of something from Romanian TV on such-and-such a date and channel. This is just in respect of one question within the body of the article -- there are many, at the moment. I suggest that what needs to happen before the article goes to deletion review is that you make it as easy as possible for people to keep it -- get rid of all the open questions that you have noted within the text, either by answering them or deleting the questioned material. Leave me a note if you have questions -- I am not currently working on Wikipedia on a daily basis, but I try to keep up with my talk page. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You will see that in the one citation that linked to YouTube (or it did and I took out the YouTube part) I use the format of citation for a Television Program, not the format of citation for a webpage. The distinction here is that they cannot remove the reference to a TV program but they can remove the reference to YouTube (on grounds of copyright, reliability, etc). That's all I have to say, was just browsing through.Rfwoolf (talk) 12:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up, and I agree, this seems like a useful and worthwhile distinction. So all that's left is a POV problem in the second paragraph -- which I would recommend solving by deleting the paragraph, unless it can be referenced, since assertions about what music is LIKE are inherently personal opinion best left to experts, in Wikipedia terms -- and an unreferenced assertion about a band member's previous work -- which I would recommend either finding a citation for, or deleting. Let me know what you think is the best way to go, and I'll help you after that with the deletion review process by nominating the article. And if you (singular or plural) have any questions, just leave a note on my talk page. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)