User talk:Phantomsteve/Archives/2013/May

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Phantomsteve. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hey Steve,

Hope you're well.

I am for an "un-deletion" of this page. If it can be restored, there can be a major clean up. Kameelion is now verified on Twitter and is touring Europe in 2013. He is also being played nationally on BBC Radio 1 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/f7cd46df-bea2-4739-abc8-7b7d58b8b732 & http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01rq9h1 Please un-delete the page so a clean up/restore can take place.

2.220.2.123 (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for contacting me. A few points about the issues you raised:

• Having a twitter account (verified or otherwise) is not sufficient to show that an artists meets the notability criteria
• BBC profile: This is not created/edited by the BBC, but by MusicBrainz. My understanding of MusicBrainz is that its content is not created by independent people, but by the artists and their fans themselves. As such, it would not be considered a reliable source. All the links on the BBC profile page are to social media sites, which do not meet the reliable source criteria either
• BBC Programme: being played on 1 programme does not meet the criteria for inclusion - the "Introducing with Jen and Ally" show is all about playing unsigned, unreleased artists - which by their very nature do not generally meet the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia.

At the moment, I see no evidence to persuade me that the concerns raised at the deletion discussion have been addressed. However, if you could provide evidence that he meets any of the following points (which are the Notability Criteria for musicians), along with evidence, then we can discuss this further:

# Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.

1. • This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries except for the following:
     • Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.
     • Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.
     • Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases.
2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.
3. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.
4. Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.
5. Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable).
6. Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles.
7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.
8. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
9. Has won or placed in a major music competition.
10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E for further clarifications)
11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.
12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.

Please note - point 11 is not the same as being played a couple of times on a radio station! Being on rotation means that the artist is going to be played regularly throughout the radio station's output, throughout the day. For example, many of John Peel's playlist would not be notable, as they are independent artists who received one or two airplays.

I hope to hear from you with evidence that he meets one or more of these criteria, at which point we can discuss further the re-creation of the article. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Phantomsteve. I'm stopping by your talk page to let you know that I commented on the above linked matter about Farrajak. Flyer22 (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you from the mid-TN area? If so, I'd love to be able to help add contributions like this one. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanbroox (talk • contribs) 18:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't remember working on an article about that Golf Course! Also, I am from the UK, not TN, I'm afraid. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
4		Mamiku (talk)						Add sources
3		Ravine Poisson (talk)						Add sources
1		Migny River (talk)						Add sources
10,820		True Blood (talk)						Add sources
45		Habutai (talk)						Add sources
2		Ash, Devon (talk)						Add sources
161		Nokia 9000 Communicator (talk)						Cleanup
73		Honest Tea (talk)						Cleanup
465		Textile printing (talk)						Cleanup
362		Olefin fiber (talk)						Expand
194		Burn (energy drink) (talk)						Expand
8		Beed Cola (talk)						Expand
143		Maaza (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
4		Bouyon soca (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
9		Saint Lucia–United States relations (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
766		St. Louis Rams (talk)						Merge
123		Glossary of textile manufacturing (talk)						Merge
5		Sarrot (talk)						Merge
28		Zorbeez (talk)						Wikify
56		Flag of Saint Lucia (talk)						Wikify
16		Tum-E Yummies (talk)						Wikify
4		The Aztec Economy (talk)						Orphan
1		Des Bollieres (talk)						Orphan
2		San Soucis (talk)						Orphan
58		Horizontal market (talk)						Stub
17		Vehicle registration plates of the Republic of Macedonia (talk)						Stub
10		Sebastian Hertner (talk)						Stub
10		Brilliantine (fabric) (talk)						Stub
0		La Treille, Saint Lucia (talk)						Stub
25		Manuel Torres Jiménez (talk)						Stub

We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:

Views/Day

Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.

Quality

Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:

Content

Is more content needed?

Headings

Does this article have an appropriate section structure?

Images

Is the number of illustrative images about right?

Links

Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?

Sources

For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I'm developing a draft article for the programming language Zonnon at User:WhisperToMe/Zonnon. It was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zonnon, and closure remained as a result of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 February 25. From my examination of the deleted draft, there were some sources that had been not cited or mentioned: a paper written by the author of the language that was submitted, and a Russian book about the language from a Russian university (I did find http://www.iis.nsk.su/files/articles/sbor_kas_11_kasyanova.pdf cited that is from a different Russian university). I have two questions.

• 1. May I copy and paste material from the deleted revisions into the draft article?
• 2. When I feel the draft is ready to be looked at, are you willing to give advice on whether notability has been proven?

Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me! The answers to your two questions are:

1. Yes - none of it were copyright violations, so help yourself!
2. Yes - although because of work commitments, it might be a while before I can get round to looking at it.

Basically, look at WP:N (and WP:RS) to remind yourself of the finer details of the notability guidelines (there are no subject-specific guidelines for software) - if your draft meets the criteria, then go for it! Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I think the basis of the article's notability will be from Russian sources. An editor on the Russian Wikipedia confirmed that two independent sources on this language were reliable and the Russian article may have more sources. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

At User:WhisperToMe/Zonnon I've listed additional Russian sources. Since they are Russian I haven't tried sourcing stuff from them. Is it fine to move the article and have an understanding that independent RSes exist, or should I ask a Russian speaker to try to source content from independent Russian sources? WhisperToMe (talk) 06:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

After I found more information about one of the Novosibirsk State University textbooks, confirming it is a work independent of the Zonnon project, I went ahead and moved it to the main space. If you think I should get a Russian speaker to try to source parts of the article, I'll see what I can do. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)