Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centrozoon
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 keep. Spartaz Humbug! 19:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Centrozoon[edit]
- Centrozoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Not Wikipedia notable. Although the word "Centrozoon" is mentioned at guitarplayer.com, there does not appear to be enough reliable, secondary published sources independent of the subject and with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 14:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No assertion of passing WP:Music --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, pending update - I am preparing an update of this article including a significant expansion of content and review quotes, supported by external links and references. Please hold off on deletion until I have completed this (within the week). - Dann Chinn (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please remove from deletion list - I have now rewritten the article in greater depth, including quotes from reviews and have included references wherever possible. Please remove from deletion list. - Dann Chinn (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DELETE, None of the sources are are really reliable, and the reviews aren't even long. Unless reliable sources can be found, my unwavering opinion is delete. DavidWS (contribs) 20:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I dispute your assertion of "unreliability". The reviews were selected as being from established electronic music publications or music review sources (if not necessarily glossy print publications) and ones found on music sales sites were weeded out even if they were more interesting in terms of content. As for the question of "the reviews aren't even long", what relevance does that have? The review quotes were trimmed (where possible) for the sake of brevity and selected for pertinence and information. (As some reviews were actually quite boring if quoted at greater length, I've done the reader a favour...- Dann Chinn (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Check out WP:N. You actually want the whole thing showing, because the reader is reading the article, not the sources. Coverage has to be non-trivial, and those seemed trivial. Regardless, everyone here is entitled to their own opinion. DavidWS (contribs) 00:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Have checked WP:N and we appear to be in a grey area here. The majority of sources quoted (including all reviews) are independent of centrozoon themselves and don't appear to fail the criteria for secondary sources. NPOV has been maintained by quoting those reviews which criticised the band's approach and achievement. Defining the coverage of the subject as "trivial" is a subjective matter - admittedly one which becomes particularly subjective when dealing with the uneasy field of music criticism. As mentioned previously, quoting each review in its entirety would involve too much repetition and not benefit the reader. All reviews quoted were therefore abridged to their pertinent descriptive and analytical points (admittedly some were shorter than others) and are easily linked to via the reference links provided, if the reader is sufficiently interested in pursuing them to read the entire text. It's true that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but a "delete" vote is significantly stronger than a simple opinion - and, with respect, David, I don't believe that you've made a case for deletion here. (Incidentally, other reviews and coverage of centrozoon exist online in languages other than English, but I've refrained from adding references to or quoting from them in translation until I'm more sure of the Wikipedia position on, for example, subjectively corrected AltaVista translations.) - Dann Chinn (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Check out WP:N. You actually want the whole thing showing, because the reader is reading the article, not the sources. Coverage has to be non-trivial, and those seemed trivial. Regardless, everyone here is entitled to their own opinion. DavidWS (contribs) 00:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I dispute your assertion of "unreliability". The reviews were selected as being from established electronic music publications or music review sources (if not necessarily glossy print publications) and ones found on music sales sites were weeded out even if they were more interesting in terms of content. As for the question of "the reviews aren't even long", what relevance does that have? The review quotes were trimmed (where possible) for the sake of brevity and selected for pertinence and information. (As some reviews were actually quite boring if quoted at greater length, I've done the reader a favour...- Dann Chinn (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 19:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 21:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep with concerts in the UK and Germany (as I understand it) passes WP:MUSIC. WilyD 21:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've personally programmed and broadcast music by this group on a number of occasions, on the nationally-syndicated weekly FM radio show which I produce. They are certainly notable. --Gene_poole (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.