Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tefosav

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 Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tefosav

Tefosav (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

No evidence of RS coverage to indicate they pass either WP:CORP or WP:MUSIC (I think it could fall under either). In the ghits I see forum posts, blogs and download links. I don't see any evidence of notability. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 06:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, I also checked Google Books and Google Scholar; no hits. --Orange Mike | Talk 06:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: article creator is currently blocked and since he cannot comment here he has made his case for keep on his talk page. I'm not certain as to the policy of linking to a blocked user's comments, so please feel free to rv me if this should not be linked here. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 07:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable spam. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 08:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. and Orange Mike. JohnCD (talk) 10:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Please look at my talk page and provide feedback on my discussion prior to any actions. There is a bigger issue here that simple allegations of "spam" are sufficient "rationalizations" for deletion. I would also like to address OrangeMike in his assertion that no references were found in Google Books or Google scholar as the subject is not related to either books or scholarly publications. I find it silly that he would even make mention of either of these resources to begin with. The problem seems to be in the defined acceptance of Notability and it's broad scope. There is currently debate on the subject of Notability that I believe an article such as TEFOSAV is too easily falling into a gap which makes it's inclusion on wikipedia difficult despite it's relevance . How do you record a notable phenomenon that is not generally notable in both traditional and arbitrarily defined "reliable sources"? Just because the subject is not part of "popular" discussion within easy reach of a google search, does not mean that it is not notable in a more general definition of the word. Given time, it is possible that such defined notability will be obtain in some fashion but only through the combined efforts of the community at large. Also, this is not some simple case of obvious self presentation, as I am not in any way related to the organization in question. In fact, said organization only exists in a historical perspective and that accusations that it is in some way trying to profit in some fashion from inclusion in wikipedia is debatable. As I have tried to make perfectly clear on my own talk page about this topic, this exercise is entirely academic in scope. It is my belief that any rationalizations for deletions should address those statements prior to any actions by the administrators. Finally, I would like to point out that those users making recommendations do not maintain any level of expertise on the subject matter and should refrain from making any uninformed comments regarding its inclusion in this discussion without making a reasonable attempt to educate themselves in it. Only through intelligent discussion can an understanding of the subject matter be obtain and that their "shoot first, ask questions" methodology be called into question. Zenasprime (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • What makes Tefosav different then 12k? Is it 12k/LINE: Zen and the Art of the Drum Machine (Originally published in The Wire, 218)? or Stylus Magazine: Label Profile ? or maybe these Taylor Deupree interview / Blueprints compilation review ? Oh wait, those links are dead! But if anyone is interested I have the actual hardcopy, the paper and ink variety, in my personal library if anyone would like to see them. Incidentally, I have copies of Goove magazine which, while not present in any searchable format here on the internet, contain article relevant to Tefosav. Anyway, my question remains, what makes these two articles difference in terms of notability? Is there some understanding that 12k is more popular that keeps it from deletion that tefosav does not? Why is it that 12k can maintain it's presence simply because Taylor is a better promoter then the organizers of Tefosav? It's not like we do not all know of each other within this circle and if individually asked about the other, we would conclude that they were of similar note, relatively speaking. I don't mean to harp on the subject but this all seems to be of a significant level of subjectivity that shouldn't be tolerated when it comes attached to such a draconian measures, but that's a conversation better served at different location. (note to Taylor, sorry for dragging you into this debate ;) ) Zenasprime (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Just because other stuff exists doesn't mean it (or this) should. I saw your comment on your talk page (it's best now that you're unblocked to keep the discussion here in one central place) about wanting to preserve an understanding of the music but that's not sufficient grounds for an article being notable per Wikipedia's standards. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 17:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think you might be misunderstanding what I am asking. I am not making a comparison to say that because one exist the other should as well. I am asking what makes one different then the other that make it notable while the other one is not. What I gather by the current definition of notability is that an article needs to assert it's notability through links that show it's relevance. The only thing that the 12k article has that the tefosav article does not are the links which I highlighted above. In fact, in creating the tefosav article I did a copy of the 12k text and used it as a template to create it. I am contending that the 12k article differs only in that it presents these links as evidence of it's notability, correct? If that is the case, then would links of a similar nature be enough to establish notability of the article? What I am ultimately questioning is that the establishment of notability, especially in this case, is HIGHLY subjective and that perhaps due to unique circumstances a more lenient degree of moderation should be considered such that the community could be given time to establish a similar degree of notability? Wikipedia is a community based effort, why not give the community time to perform its function? Or do I have the function of this website wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenasprime (talk • contribs) 18:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Let me ask this, if I am able to produce a bibliography style reference to an article on the subject of Tefosav that is contained in a magazine, such as grooves, and cited that reference in the article, even though it would not be searchable on the internet, would that establish notability in this case? In other words, I can't provide a link to the resource but I can cite some outside article, obscure as it might be, is that enough to establish notability? Zenasprime (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
  • "Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criterion, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors.[1] Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable.[2]
  • "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.[3]
  • "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.[4]
  • "Sources,"[5] defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.[6]
  • "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[7]
A single article in a magazine obscure enough that it itself does not have an article here, would probably not suffice. Note that other articles have citations to a plurality of sources, not a single one. I do readily agree, however, that the availability or non-availability of a source publication on the Internet is totally irrelevant. I mentioned books and Google-Scholar results because such results may serve to show that the subject matter has been deemed of interest to serious students of the field. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • So you don't really do your research and are here just to be a jackass... grooves YOU are the problem, not the article. Instead of being a jackass, why don't you just answer my question about how to cite an in print source? Zenasprime (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I would also like to add that this entire process is chuck full of subjectivity simply because of all the other articles available on wikipedia that do not meet the criteria you have just so kindly pasted up for my amusement. This entire process is subject to asshattery the likes of which only the internet can provide. Wikipedia is a joke precisely because of administrators like OrangeMike. Have fun with your increasingly irrelevant pet project. Zenasprime (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
You didn't wikify the word, I didn't know you meant that was the name of an actual publication. Ignoring your insults, I will offer the following link: WP:CITE to our procedures for citing articles. I usually recommend a pretty basic style, thus: <ref>Smith, John. "Tefosav and Electronic Music: Innovation Online" ''[[Grooves]]'' #202 (Jan. 2007), p. 102</rev>. Make sure to create a "References" section on the bottom of the article, so the reference shows properly.--Orange Mike | Talk 15:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • If it walks and quacks.... anyway, why don't you put this in my userspace until such time as I am able to go through my library to find the relevant sources, as it seems as if you administrators don't really give the community the necessary time to do the job with which it's been tasked to do. I don't have the amount of time, as you seem to do, to lord over wikipedia to make sure that my articles aren't deleted by the over zealous staff. Thanks Zenasprime (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Would you like somebody to help you set up what we call "sandboxes" where you can work on revised versions of this or other articles, with citations and the rest of the expected article infrastructure? You could then invite other editors to examine the re-written versions before posting them to mainspace. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Has everyone just given up on this discussion and moved on to more easily delete-able content? Seriously, is the article just going to remain in deletion limbo because the admins responsible for putting it there couldn't logically argue their own position or support their policy in any reasonable fashion? Zenasprime (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Note, I'm not an admin and I made a valid case for deletion. AfDs normally run for five days, and this will run until a consensus is decided. May I remind you of WP:NPA and WP:COI, both of which you've been cautioned about before. Any citations need to come from reliable sources and for the nth time, WP:OTHERCRAP is not a valid keep reason. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 15:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Again with WP:OTHERCRAP is misguided in this respect. Other crap is important because it clearly shows that there is a Double_standard that exists when ALL things are equal otherwise. AGAIN this isn't a case where policy is in question but it's interpretation by the powers that be.
  • Just to reiterate my position, as it doesn't seem to be just my perspective, there is a growing debate that is relevant in this case and it's being reported/discussed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenasprime (talk • contribs) 15:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I spent ten frustrating minutes slogging through the various external links provided in the article, and looking at ghits. Didn't see much of anything that would help meet notability requirements. Tanthalas39 (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Can this be made into a stub or if not be put into my userspace until such time that it's notability be aggreed upon? Either way, what is requried is that it be given appropriate time such that the community can provide the necessary additions. Thanks Zenasprime (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Just so it's clear, I by no means agree to this deletion. It's my position that the community should be given a significant time period through which the necessary source could eventually be added. I in no way support the use of CSD-A7 and firmly believe that the potential for abuse, either deliberate or through ignorance, make this policy more destructive then was it's original intent. Wikipedia should not seek to replace it's hardcopy counterpart by seeking to emulate it's outdated ideological foundation for inclusion, but rather shoudl surplant it through the inclusion of all topics of variable relevance and notiblity as determined by an entire worlds effort. The technology exists for this to be possible, let us use it! Zenasprime (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Though the article needs work on the references, I feel that there is enough to presume that this isn't a hoax and that Tefosav really did exist as the first paragraph of Tefesav states.
The group seems worthy of note to me because, though short lived, it is somewhat of a phenomena that several presumably influential artists created a new, non-profit group for supporting digital media.
By the way, once and for all, just citing WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a good argument. Citing other stuff as a reason for inclusion is a mechanism of providing consistency.
« D. Trebbien (talk) 01:49 2008 March 15 (UTC)
clarification and reply - The question has never been whether the subject existed; and whether it is noteworthy is a value judgment. The question is whether it is notable; and in that, the keep arguments have been weak. (And you seem to be misunderstanding something; WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an acknowledgement that we're not perfect here, and some non-notable stuff has accreted; which doesn't constitute a license to put more non-notable stuff in, but rather an admonishment to remove the non-notable. We prefer to raise, not lower, our quality standards.) --Orange Mike | Talk 14:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, what your deletionist attitude seems to miss is that given time, an article will develop the required notability through the collective effort of users. It appears that in it's current state, Wikipedia's policies on this matter are significantly in favor of the deletionist mentality. This is unfortunate given the intended design of Wikipedia as a collective effort. I understand the desire of Wikipedians, such as yourself, to maintain a higher level of respectability, but in the end, it's this kind of philosophy that will ultimately hold Wikipedia back as a useful tool to the public. Zenasprime (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Nice try Orange Mike, but you are begging the question.
Also, I am not misunderstanding WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS at all. Did you notice this above: "Just because other stuff exists doesn't mean it (or this) should."? Connect this with the following text from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS:

The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because "other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc."

My point exactly.
« D. Trebbien (talk) 02:55 2008 March 15 (UTC)
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.