Talk:The Tear Garden

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is no reason to delete this article at all. This is important information about a well liked band

Some comments:

  1. They've been releasing albums for 20 years.
  2. For a majority of their career they were part of the biggest Canadian record label, before moving on to their own personal labels.
  3. They're DIRECTLY tied to two very influencial and respected bands - Skinny Puppy and The Legendary Pink Dots, with the founders being a musician of one and the lead singer for the other.
  4. The band's singer, Edward Ka-Spel, has had his lyrics (including the lyrics of The Tear Garden) published in print.

For your reference I have included the link to wp:band the article discussing notability of bands on wikipedia. You may want to refer to it in making your argument. Alan.ca 08:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"Important note: Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion." Blogbourri 08:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I third no reason for deletion. Alan, just because you've never heard of the band doesn't mean they're not notable or unworthy of being on Wikipedia. I was dissapointed someone took an action like this which I find offensive, especially after me and the user above you recently put time into editing this page just today to expand upon the band. There is no reason to delete this article at all. This is a band with a long history formed from two notable acts in the industrial genre. Their albums have worldwide distribution. It is also true that lyrics are published in print in the book 'Love and Loud colours' by Edward Ka-Spel. I cannot stand for the deletion of this page and other users will come to the aid of this band if need be. This page is of interest to any interested person or fan of Skinny Puppy or The Legendary Pink Dots. - Goneja, 08:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

A musician or ensemble 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.

Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble.


Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.

Sounds great, now show me the Verifiable source citations that demonstrate it.Alan.ca 08:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


As I only need to prove 1 of these things, I shall do: Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

http://www.werkshop.com/store/artist.action;jsessionid=abceZCa-NxVRShGvsqH9q?artist_id=7

3 albums released on the Nettwerk label, which is a major canadian label. Apon further investigation you can find the importance of the member and also end up proving another point needed.

Anal as hell.

According to the above criteria stated by another user: 1. I am personally aware of advertising for the Tear Garden, I have a promotional flat for the album "Crystal Mass". This is reason enough to be deemed notable according to the above. 2. Edward Ka-Spel is vocalist of The Legendary Pink Dots and has opened for and played with The Dresden Dolls (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8BGbYTffzc for verification of dresden dolls claim). cEvin Key is a founding member of the notable band Skinny Puppy. This is added reason for tear garden to be deemed notable. - Goneja, 08:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. I'm "Anal as hell" because this is an encyclopedia and statements need to be verified. You have to keep in mind that international visitors read this project. You made your point, I hope that citation makes it into the article. I also learned that there exists an exception to the speedy delete rule for notability, I will include it for your reference,

  • Non-notable subjects with their importance asserted: Articles that have obviously non-notable subjects are still not eligible for speedy deletion unless the article "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". If the article gives a claim that might be construed as making the subject notable, it should be taken to a wider forum. However, articles with only a statement like "This guy was like so friggin' notable!" can be deleted per CSD A1 because it gives no context about the subject.

Alan.ca 08:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Alan, please respond to my quote above. It was short and is probably getting lost now. The point is, you seem to be misusing "speedy deletion." The onus should be on you to explain that. Notability is not a valid reason for the speedy deletion tag. It's in the article you linked to. You're artificially pressuring people to introduce sources to an article that is being actively edited. If there's specific information you feel needs to be cited, just add a tag to the single instance. DO NOT go around trying to get articles deleted outright. It's lazy and harmful. Blogbourri 08:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

And now I see you have. ;) Blogbourri 09:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Cheers guys! Let's just cite our sources. It's not a big deal. I truly have no knowledge of these bands, articles need sources to remain in the wikipedia. It's a common complaint that is obstructing the notability of this project. Alan.ca 09:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


Alan, our point was, you still pulled crap on us despite being hammered almost immediately by three different people. You erroneously labeled this as being candidate for speedy deletion and we proved you wrong in two minutes. It's as if you were simply taunting us to add more information. When this page *finally* gets updated, even given an original image (of my own taking) to be applied to it, that's when you step in to delete it? This is nonsense, and it was a slap in the face to the people who edited this article today. You should have assumed our works today would have eventually lead up to proper citations and increased reasoning behind a claim of notability. Your actions and dialogue here come off highly elitist. Step back into your chambers in Oxford and let us work on it. Goneja 9:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Look, let's not get into personal attacks here. The fact is wikipedia provides every one of us with our own space to prepare works for the main space. Not including, the talk page of an article is often used to prepare main space material. Additionally, you can create a sandbox for works in progress. An article, is a final form document, not a test page for experimentation. If you're going to create something, have a source. If you don't have the source, just wait until you do. Often people find that when they seek out the sources they find they had incorrect information on a subject understood as fact.Alan.ca 09:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's just leave it at "we're working on it." It's obvious from looking at today's history of changes. Enough bickering. ;) I do seriously question the ethic of applying "speedy deletion" in this way, however. If the intent is to get sources cited, say that. Anything else is underhanded.Blogbourri 09:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I applied it because I questioned the notability of the source. The speedy delete template clearly affords use for that reason. I did not, however see the other section noting the exception I shared with you all here. For that mistake, I apologize. However, at once in discussion, verifiability strikes at the core of notability. If it cannot be verified, it is not notable. So that's how we came to where we are.Alan.ca 09:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needs updating...

The Secret Experiment has been out for quite some time...I'm not sure about the release date, though. 69.246.220.86 (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)