Talk:List of keytarists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Removed speedy

This article was marked for speedy deletion with the rationale "It is a very short article lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article". I've added a picture that should provide sufficient context for the article; I could see this being transwikied to Wiktionary, but as we have articles for Pianist, Guitarist and Keyboardist, I feel it might as well stay as a stub to encourage eventual expansion.--jwandersTalk 06:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Improvements needed

On a list like this, certain elements are needed to make it most useful and nonredundant to a category:

  1. References for each entry are essential for bringing the article into compliance with verifiability and original research policies. The sources used should be reliable (eg. not a blog or personal website).
  2. Inclusion criteria are necessary to prevent this from becoming unmanageable or an indiscriminant collection of information. At present, it may be enough to simply limit entries to notable musicians (or musicians in notable bands) for whom their keytar use can be confirmed in reliable sources. If they don't have an article yet, they're probably not notable. Later, if the list becomes excessively long, it may be necessary to have stricter inclusion criteria (for example, excluding those who merely used the keytar no more than a few times, and including only those who made long-term and notable use of the instrument).
  3. Explanatory information is one of the things that makes a list nonredundant to a category. It can give the artist's birth/death date(s), specify the group(s) they played keytar with, and/or explain why their keytar use was notable (for example, the entry for Tom Schuman mentions that he is the owner of the first commercially produced keytar--this is the type of information that can make this article useful for those researching keytarists).

I've already done some work to try to improve the article with these things in mind. Please join me in finding reliable sources and explanatory information so that this list can get into more encyclopedic shape. Thank you. Nick Graves (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] KeytarJeff/Jeff Abbott

There have been multiple reverts concerning whether this person belongs on the list. Let's reach some consensus here. The current guideline for musicians lists 12 criteria for notability. If any one of these criteria are met by an artist, they are generally considered notable enough to have their own article. I looked at each criterion in the list, and Jeff Abbott does not meet any of them. Maybe there's some significant coverage out there that I'm not aware of, but based on the single source I've seen (currently cited in the article), there's not significant enough coverage to prove notability. What does everyone else think? Nick Graves (talk) 02:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Jeff Abbott completely fails notability guidelines. And anyone can be on YouTube; that is a completely useless basis for claiming notability. Ward3001 (talk) 02:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


Perhaps one of you should take the time to read the source reference. Yes, anyone can have a youtube video, the point the author (Marcus O Dair) made was a 'Keytar Video made it to the number one "Music Video slot . Considering there are hundreds of thousands of music videos, this is quite a feat. This is not about self promotion but the interest that this unique instrument is now generating.

The bias or inconsistency of wiki editors REALLY should be addressed. Also included in that list is Belinda Bedekovic whose claim of notoriety was ALMOST making it into the "Borat" movie, her part was left on the editing floor. Her only actual involvement was for a promo and a live performance. There are others on the same list who REALLY do not even meet that criteria.

Jeffrey Abbott/Keytarjeff's involvement with the evolution of the instrument has been documented not just in the O'Dare story but also in other publications around the world including KEYBOARD magazine.

I humbly suggest that you might take a minute to qualify someone by at least substantiating the reference that was used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.252.11.52 (talk) 10:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering that YouTube's stats are based solely on page loads, the chart is meaningless—anyone could sit and continually reload their own video, boosting their view count. Alternately, someone could spam the link across the internet and jack up clicks in that manner. YouTube stats are just not reliable. Regarding Ms. Bedekovic—if her article was sent to AfD, it is unlikely it would survive (unless it were added to considerably). Were the article deleted, her name would be removed from the list posthaste. See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 11:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Belinda Bedeković has an article, Keytarjeff does not. Precious Roy (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This clarifies the other users point of the lack of knowledge by wikipedia editiors. Youtube Ratings are NOT based on page loads but by how account holders rate the video the range is 1-5 stars. a user can only rate a video once. Page loads are only valid for "Relevance"

The mechanisms they have in place largely guard against fraud. In the past few weeks they actually have even removed the ability of individuals to see "Actual" ratings. Users now can only see 'relevance'. and it's "General Rating" if a video gains special status, it's indicated on that videos page. Once a video drops in rankings, it loses its status kudos however, validating that a video reached the "Top Status" is not that hard to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.100.56 (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

All of this information about YouTube has no bearing. YouTube is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. Period. So please establish notability according to acceptable Wikipedia guidelines. Ward3001 (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Footnote: i visited the link for Belinda Bedekovic and it does confirm what has already been said. She really does not meet criteria based on wikipedia guidelines. That said, her visibility all over the internet is substantial.

Should she be excluded from the list of 'Keytar Players? in my opinion No. The purpose of this list was to include known players of the instrument, not their biographies. The same for sure can and should be said about "Abbott". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.100.56 (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC) My point was wikipedia editors removed a link and stated incorrect & uneducated reasoning whilst referencing "Youtube". Establishing criteria for inclusion/exclusion requires a bit of investment of time not just hitting a delete button. Some editors here have the attitude of "I will remove a link because it's red". Therefore passing a verdict without investigating authenticity. Bedekoic and Abbott's impact in regards to the instrument is well documented. Should either have their own Wikiedia page? That I can't answer (ok, I could but won't) but again, their relevance for being added to the list, is a no brainer. Seems to me the decision not to include "Abbott" is based on ego, not logic or guidelines. Should one be on the list and not the other? I look forward to your replies in this regard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.100.56 (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"The purpose of this list was to include known players of the instrument": That would be true if one word was changed: notable players of the instrument.
"Establishing criteria for inclusion/exclusion requires a bit of investment of time": All of us objecting to inclusion of Abbott have invested the time in reading notability criteria. Have you? If so, please indicate how Abbott meets those criteria.
"the decision not to include "Abbott" is based on ego, not logic or guidelines": We have repeatedly referred to the guidelines and asked for evidence that Abbott meets the guidelines, but it has not been provided.
""Should one be on the list and not the other?": If you're asking whether Bedeković should be on the list, this discussion is about Abbott, not Bedeković. If you wish to create a discussion of Bedeković, you are entitled to do so. In fact, you are entitled to nominate Belinda Bedeković for AfD. But this discussion is not about her. Again, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for details. Ward3001 (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ward3001, you are EXACTLY what and to whom I'm referring when it comes to megalomaniac editors. It was your logic that I questioned in the beginning. And again, my comments were about the procedure, Abbott was simply the metaphor.

Let me yet illustrate another example of my objection to your practice of REDFONT deletion. Also included in that same list is John Avila. Though an accomplished bassist, he has NOTHING to do with "Keytaring". Perhaps, if you would edit topics you were familiar with, oversights like this would happen less and Wikipedia's credibility would be substantially better. Or at LEAST you could google search people that are included.

Next, I suppose, your argument will be google is not a valid source either.

It's not my desire to prove Abbott is "Notable" or not, though I do have my own educated opinion. Perhaps you should seek him out and get that answered for yourself or AGAIN at least do your homework before just hitting the delete button.

It is my opinion based on the reference"3" in the article that if Marcus O' Dair is going to be used to validate in part or whole someone else's inclusion to the list of keytarists, to delete someone because there is not a pre-exsisting Wikipedia article make no sense whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.100.56 (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If you know that John Avila is not a keytarist, by all means remove his name from the list. Despite Tom Schuman not having his own article, he is included on the list because he is a member of a notable group (Spyro Gyra) and there is an independant reference verifying that he plays a keytar. If you don't see the difference between his inclusion and Keytarjeff's exclusion, then it would appear that you don't understand the way Wikipedia works. And accusing other editors of megalomania is definitely not the way to win friends and/or influence people. Furthermore, Marcus O'Dair is not being used to validate anyone's inclusion on this list, his article is merely verifying that the person named does, in fact, play the keytar. Even if keytarjeff were mentioned in that article he still wouldn't be meet Wikipedia's standards of notability. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 22:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"It's not my desire to prove Abbott is "Notable" or not": If that's true, then case closed on Abbott. Start a new section if you want to talk about notability issues in general. Ward3001 (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General notability issues

Hello, Control you again accentuate my point.

1. Tom Schuman is NOT a keytarist, he played the Moog Liberation that was given to him for a VERY short time. In fact he hated the instrument. Yes, he had the first one WHICH does deserve mention but that's really about it. Schuman in regards to keytaring is NOT notable.

2. Wikipedia notability factor, correct me if I'm wrong, is in regards to creating an acceptable article NOT the keytar list. I will also mention that the "Notable Keytar List" was not the original name it was "List of Keytarists". Because someone renamed the list simply means the list could in fact be reverted to its original title therefore would end the discussion in this regard. Of course, you would then claim vandalism. I will suggest at this point you read...WP:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.100.56 (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia notability factor, correct me if I'm wrong, is in regards to creating an acceptable article NOT the keytar list": You are hereby corrected. An article that consists of a list is still an article. There are not separate notability guidelines for lists.
""Notable Keytar List" was not the original name it was "List of Keytarists": Notability is always assumed to be a standard for Wikipedia. There is not a separate grouping of articles in which notability is not important. List of guitarists is not entitled "List of notable guitarists", but that doesn't mean that anyone who has ever played a guitar qualifies for the list. Being the class clown in high school does not entitle someone to be included in List of comedians. Ward3001 (talk) 01:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The analogy used by you (WARD3001) is at best, weak. It's inclusion in this thread shows classic megalomaniac characteristics. I know, you will respond that I'm a meanie who stoops to name calling but your insistence to hide behind wikipedia guidelines which you do not fully grasp is quite annoying. Again, I'm asking you to do nothing more than qualify your edits in your own reasoning. NOT copy and paste or give a link.

Considering your page claims you have Ph.D. in philosophy scribing a few lines in your own words should not be much of a task. I would be grateful if others would give you time to respond before making comment.

According to Wikipedia Guidlines you MUST explain your reasoning. Last time I checked 'Assumption" was not part of that criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.100.56 (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I remember at the time (late 70s/early 80s) seeing pictures of Schuman playing that keytar all over the place, including the cover of Contemporary Keyboard magazine (didn't he even do ads for it?). So even if he hated playing the thing, and only did so for a short period of time, he played it professionally and it was covered in the media.
I think all the parties involved have clearly stated their points of view regardless of their comprehension of Wikipedia standards. If any new voices wish to weigh in, they are more than welcome to add their opinions but, otherwise, I suggest we move on. This is past the point of discussion and devolving into a troll sesh.—Hello, Control Hello, Tony 09:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

.....................................................................................................................................................................

I don't recall Schuman having the cover on "KEYBOARD" ever. You might be thinking about George Duke, who did. I think that was in the mid-80's I do agree Schuman should not be included in the "List" of keytarists. And since you mentioned Contemporary Keyboard magazine, "Keytarjeff/Jefftrey Abbott's keytar band "Roadpigs" was featured in that Magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.252.11.52 (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"qualify your edits in your own reasoning.": My own reasoning conforms precisely with Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia guidelines are the standard by which we must operate. I have no obligation to restate guidelines "in my own words" despite your grandiose and irrational demands. Read WP:MUSIC and you will see all the justification that is needed for my point of view. This is the end of the discussion as far as I'm concerned. None of us is required to bend to your idiosyncratic demands and (in your own words) "name calling" (i.e., personal attacks, a blockable action). Ward3001 (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Source Qualifying

Question for the editors: Is the Times of London a Reliable Source? Is Keyboard Magazine a Reliable Source? . If the answer is yes, i will be adding Abbott's name back to the list with appropriate information( date and issue of keyboard magazine story) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.252.11.52 (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"In regards to 'Notable" from Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Notability (music) Criteria for musicians and ensembles

A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.[1] This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television "

Based on this Abbott more than quaifies to be included in the list. My only heistation is i REALLY don't wan't to get blocked (again) for adding or reverting this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.252.11.52 (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that keytarjeff meets WP:MUSIC, create an article for him. If he has his own Wikipedia article, no one will delete him from the list. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 19:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think i will just add him to the list. I do now know that an article is not the criteria needed to do so. I just wanted to make sure I would not be starting another list war of sorts by doing so. I also never created an article and can only imaging the hell that would create.::). I do see how an article would help eliminate issues though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.252.11.52 (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


I think Hello Control made an excellent suggestion. Despite our conflicts here, I would like to see more detail in an article on Keytar Jeff (don't use that as the article title BTW; use a real name). If you need help creating an aricle, go to WP:YFA and/or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will answer your questions. Ward3001 (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I would not advise adding Jeff back to the list just yet, because you (72.252.11.52) have still not proven that he is notable (and because 3 other editors have previously disputed this addition, and because you did get blocked previously for repeatedly reverting this musician back into the list). You believe that Keytarjeff has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, independent, reliable published works. Well, prove it. Make an article about him in which you cite these sources. If the article is made, and if it avoids deletion, then consensus would support your contention that he is notable. Notable musicians who have played the keytar are a welcome addition to this list. But without proof of notability, the other editors of this list are not going to support including Keytarjeff. Thanks for discussing first. Nick Graves (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC) ...................................................................................................................................................................

Nick, are you saying that you can;t add someone to the list without an article? This seems to contradict wikipedia guidelines. Please clarify this for me. I already have stated i wish not to scribe the article because i never have. Also i did ask a question that has yet to be answered which is, are the "Times of London and Keyboard magazine reliable sources?

I am sorry to ask these questions again however, i have not got a direct answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.252.11.52 (talk) 07:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what guidelines you believe are being contradicted. Perhaps you could point them out. I do know this: The general consensus of editors of this article seems to be that Keytarjeff is not notable. So simply adding him back, as you've done several times before, would go against Wikipedia policy (specifically, WP:Consensus). So here's your direct answer: Do not add him back in.
And here's another direct answer: Times of London and Keyboard magazine are reliable sources. However, the fact that Keytarjeff is mentioned in these sources does not prove that he is notable by Wikipedia standards. To include him in the list, it's not enough to just show that Keytarjeff plays keytar. He must be notable too. You are already aware of the notability criteria for musicians. Even with the coverage in the Times of London article cited in this list, Keytarjeff has not been shown to be notable. The coverage concerning Keytarjeff in that article is trivial. Will coverage in Keyboard magazine help show notability? Maybe, if it's significant coverage (that is, more than just a blurb), but you'll need to find such coverage in multiple sources before you can be confident that Keytarjeff has been shown to be notable.
What Ward and Hello and I have made clear is this: We will not delete Keytarjeff from this list if he has an article on Wikipedia. If you want him on this list, you should create an article for him. But remember: Every person with an article on Wikipedia must be notable. If you start an article for this person and cannot show that he is notable, the article will most likely be deleted, and then Keytarjeff will again be removed from this list. And I'm going to level with you: I'll be first in line to nominate the article for deletion if I'm not satisifed that he meets guidelines. So, if you're still interested in putting Keytarjeff in the list, take a look around the internet and find as many articles in reliable sources as you can that are about him or at least mention him, create the article, and cite your sources. Asking for help from the Musicians Wikiproject would be a good idea. If the experienced editors there are not convinced that Keytarjeff is a viable subject for an article, then you can be pretty sure that your efforts are better directed toward other endeavors. But if they accept the challenge, and help you find some good sources, you'll probably be in good shape.
Was that direct enough? Nick Graves (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

.................................................................................................................................

[edit] Was that direct enough?

Nick, thanks for that but not quite. The other question asked and not answered is: Do you have to have a "wikipedia article" to be part of that list? Please understand i'm not asking for a personal opinion, just clarification of the rule. A simple yes or no would be GREAT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.252.11.52 (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes a Yes or No answer is not adequate or even possible. That's why professors ask essay questions in addition to true-false questions. Here's my opinion: If someone is notable, that notability is generally established in an article about that person. Once that notability has been established and accepted by the Wikipedia community, inclusion in a list generally is not a problem. Including someone in a list who does not have an article is much more challenging because it's hard to provide adequate notability information in a list alone. Reputable sources can be cited, but that provides very little direct information available to the reader. And if there are adequate sources pertaining to a person, there's no reason not to have an article about the person. Even a very short article (stub), assuming it is adequately sourced and written, is better than nothing and probably would remove any questions about inclusion in a list. And in terms of standard procedures on Wikipedia, it's definitely not a good idea to repeatedly add an item to a list that has been challenged by several editors. It's much more appropriate (and in fact easier) to create an article, then add to the list. Ward3001 (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Ward thanks but all I'm asking for is Wikipedia actual policy in this regard. Though i do appreciate your lengthy answer the question remains.

Is there not an editor out there that can? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.252.11.52 (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Although there are some detailed policies about notability and consensus, to my knowledge there is no policy that explicitly states "It is [necessary/not necessary] for a person included in a list to have an article." The absence of that wording anywhere in Wikipedia, however, does not mean that notability (what we've been discussing on this talk page), consensus (the general procedure for determining content of articles when there is any uncertainty about policy), or other policies can be ignored. You might read WP:L for more details about lists. Ward3001 (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Ward 3001 scribed " to my knowledge there is no policy that explicitly states "It is [necessary/not necessary] for a person included in a list to have an article."

Thank you Very Much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.252.11.52 (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Schuman

Why is his link now BLUE when there is no direct article on him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.252.11.52 (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Control created the article and made it into a redirect the band Spyro Gyra. Nick Graves (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

........................................................................................................................................................................................................... Are you saying that anyones name can " Blue Linked" even with no article as long as they played with the group?? And here i thought that was a seperate entity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.252.11.52 (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If there is an article on a group and a person is/was a legitimate member of that group but does not have an article, yes the person's name can be wikilinked to the group. The case of Schuman certainly isn't the first time this has been done. For example, see Larry "Rhino" Reinhardt. Ward3001 (talk) 23:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Verification Requested

I now have asked twice for verification that Tom Schuman owned the first commerically released Keytar. From what has been stated, the Marcus O' Dare piece sites no proof of sources. If his printing of this (o'dare) is considered "Gospel" Please just say so. If not i request another source to verify this claim. And if not, please replace my citation request. I have tried to verify this and can find nothing on the net to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.252.11.52 (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

O'Dair's piece is a reliable source. It says Schuman owned the first commercially produced keytar. Case closed. What if we provided another source supporting O'Dair's claim? Would you then insist that we find another source supporting that source? And then another source supporting that source? And then another source... That would be absurd. The only verification anyone needs is right there in the source that is already cited. Nick Graves (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] STOP THIS PLEASE!!!!

In regards to "Jeffrey Abbott" I AM Jeffrey Abbott aka KeytarJeff.

All of this crap in regards to me being listed is JUST SILLY. Last time i checked WikiPedia is not propelling my career or putting cash in my pocket. In other words STOP THIS PLEASE.

For the record: The information about who owned the first five Moog's in the KEYTAR article came from me. Also, I am Marcus O' Dare's Source for Tom owning the first Keytar.

And yes there was a story on me&my band featured in the "WorldView" section of Keyboard mag it was in the nineties and to be honest without digging in the attic for a copy i don't have a clue when it was. I know it was prior to internet stuff. I'm confident that if someone were to contact then editor Dominic Milano he would authenticate this. If someone does please send him my best!

I dont have the time at this moment nor is this the place to go into details on the Moog thing however i also owned a white prototype of the liberation. My contact at moog was a guy named Leon Filkowski. i have not had contact with him for over 20 years.

And yes, i STILL play a Keytar did 200 shows last year in Europe, and for enthusiasts of the instrument, get ready there is a new one coming, soon::)

I hope this clears up any confusion. If any of you have questions feel free to contact me through my website www.jeffreyabbott.com or at keytarjeff@comcast.net

I am posting this to the list and the original article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffrey abbott (talk • contribs) 12:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC) .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. I don't think it's silly. My point was the random&personal acts editors make in these articles. I think it's positive though that you cleared some of this up. I would however like to see documentation of your claims. And I'm not being rude, I'm quite a fan BUT i am trying to be fair. Ok, i will stop now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.252.11.52 (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)