Talk:Minor Empire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Minor Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Recent close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ozan Boz (2nd nomination)[edit]

Sorry for the long post, but the discussion was closed prematurely (less than a week since first vote) so I did not get a chance to point out the mistakes made in the redirection comments.

I am an infrequent contributor, and consider myself a newcomer on Wikipedia [[2]].

This article was marked for speedy deletion first because it was claimed to be “substantially the same” as an article deleted in 2018 by the Nominator. However, the new article is a complete rewrite as it contains multiple references to sources published in and after 2018, it “can't be substantially the same”. (as per ϢereSpielChequers) As I am reading the Wiki policies, this constitutes as “Overzealous deletion” WP:OZD since the nominator didn’t review the new article carefully and rushed into the speedy deletion. Later, the nominator added a few comments concerning notability.

Nominator’s concerns were around reliable sources at first. As explained above, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), Jazz.FM, Exclaim, Chronicle Telegraph are all highly credible/reliable sources in Canada. The new article satisfies the section 1 of the WP:MUSICBIO guidelines.

Another concern was around the notability of Canadian Folk Music Award (CFMA) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Folk_Music_Awards . It is clear in the guidelines WP:MUSICBIO, major awards are not limited to Grammy. CFMA is a national music award in Canada since 2005. It recognizes the accomplishments of musicians and professionals in the music industry in underrepresented music genres such as folk, jazz, world. It may or may not get media coverage as much as more popular awards, however criteria is not about popularity, but verifiability/reliability/notability. As a matter of fact, many Grammy or Juno nominees get very little to none media coverage. CFMAs are regarded as major awards in Canada in their own right for their inclusiveness for eclectic musical genres, and their established jury system is known to be far more inclusive than Junos. The same is true for the Independent Music Awards. The new article satisfies section 8 of the WP:MUSICBIO guidelines.

As laid out in the guidelines WP:NMG, reliable source doesn’t only mean “media coverage”. Since CFMA is an established and highly regarded organization, their website is a reliable source. The same is true for Independent Music Awards.

Later, the nominator's concerns later shifted to the person’s nomination at CFMA as the nominator claimed that the nomination was for the band, not the person. Nominator is mistaken. A careful look at the awards website will reveal that the individual was nominated for his accomplishment for producing a record for the band, and he was nominated as a Producer (as an individual) not as a member of the band. Nomination is his accomplishment alone. The same is true for Independent Music Awards. Outside work is also not a requirement of the guideline WP:MUSICBIO.

As for DOOMSDAYER520’s comment about the person being noticed briefly, CBC article is a stub for a radio/tv spot on national radio/tv, and Jazz.fm article is a description page for an 1-hr documentary on the works of the band as well as the producer. Jazz.fm broadcasts nationally and internationally on satellite radio, and one of very few jazz-only radios remaining in North America. If the article is kept, sources to the actual footage may be discovered by other contributors, but if it is deleted, the article won’t have that chance.

DOOMSDAYER520 also raised concerns about the person’s filmmaking endeavour. As I wrote above, while this seems to be an extracurricular activity for the person or a new occupation. I don’t see any harm leaving it there since there are reliable sources. Media coverage is not a requirement. Film festival websites are reliable enough sources to include this info. Maybe “filmmaker” can be removed from the Occupations list until this person creates more work in that field. However, there are many musician profiles on Wikipedia where the person is also said to be, say, a painter with no reference. Marital status of many people are mentioned with no reference either. These are such details that make them look human, and in my opinion, makes the article an interesting read. As long as there are reliable sources (as in this case), showing someone’s profile in its entirety makes a more readable article.

A redirect comment was made by Keivan.f. However, the editor doesn’t sound certain as many of the commenters. Wiki Policy WP:DP discusses in length that when in doubt, keeping the article is a better choice, and suggestions for improvement are more appropriate resolutions, especially if there is a potential for the article to grow.

2601:188:180:b8e0:c9ac:a0c:6f13:582c added a COI template and DOOMSDAYER referenced to it, however no discussion was started, or no explanation given as to what it is s/he thinks that might be a COI here. COI page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:COI ) states “if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start a discussion, any editor will be justified in removing the tag without warning.“ This might be the condoned practise as editors move quickly through articles, however according to the COI page it is not the right way. I'd be happy to respond to this COI claim. However, as DOOMSDAYER did, solely pointing out to “edit history” doesn’t give me much to respond to WP:COI. Anyone’s edit history can be interpreted and pointed out for some speculative affiliation. The burden of providing supporting evidence is on the claimant. I’d like to get attention to the “Assuming good faith” (AGF) principle. WP:GF

Just because an article was marked for speedy deletion for the second time, doesn’t mean the only resolution is to delete or merge or redirect it. As the new article satisfies more than one requirement of the guidelines, it should be kept. Drmies Timothy

Neckhumbucker (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neckhumbucker, there isn't a single secondary source in here, and that's the kind of thing that wins discussion. But I tell you what, I will reopen the discussion, since NO ONE wants to spend more time answering all these objections in yet another forum. And then, a week from now, it will be closed with the exact same result. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drmies, I understand a secondary source would help, but it is not a must to win, correct? I never saw a secondary source (books, dictionaries etc as I understand) for a non-popular, or non-classical but notable musicians here. Basically, most notable jazz musicians would not have any books written about them or academic research done. Can you kindly give me examples of secondary sources for a musician's page? Maybe my understanding is wrong. And if possible, any Wiki policies/guidelines regarding a requirement for secondary sources. Many Thanks. Neckhumbucker (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your understanding is incorrect, and if that was your Wikipedia experience, it is not representative. Have you read our policies and guidelines? ALL content must be verifiable to secondary sources. Here is one. For more on secondary sources, you could, eh, look it up on Wikipedia. Secondary source. Drmies (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Minor_Empire&oldid=1205535857"