User talk:Vianello/Archives/2017/April
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Ian.thomson in topic The Cog is Dead
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
The Cog is Dead
I was just looking to see if there was any info in Wikipedia on The Cog is Dead and ran into this note on the redlink page: 00:48, 10 May 2010 Vianello (talk | contribs) deleted page The Cog is Dead (Speedy deleted per CSD A7, was an article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble that didn't assert the importance or significance of the subject. using TW).
I realize this is 7 years ago that this happened, but, as the band is still around and has put out 3 albums now, would it at least be possible to look at what was there to see if there's some way to put it into a more acceptable form?
--Blackfyr (talk) 06:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) Existence is not the same as notability. Our notability standards require an article to cite multiple professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are not affiliated with the subject but still specifically about them. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I know that it needs to cite acceptable sources, which was why I was asking if there was a way to "look at what was there to see if there's some way to put it into a more acceptable form", i.e. see what sources were cited and find out if there are more, acceptable, sources available now, seven years after the group has been around and performing. I do not know at this point what sources there are, as I was checking here (Wikipedia) first, and saw the article had been deleted. Now, since I have gone out of the way to re-explain my request, perhaps you'd be willing to respond to the request itself rather than taking issue with what you thought I was saying? Blackfyr (talk) 08:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Blackfyr: If it was deleted, the sources and material in the old version were useless. Otherwise it would not have been deleted. The best thing to do is:
- Look for as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources as you can find. You need to do this whether or not you got to see the old version, or else it will get deleted again.
- Get rid of all of the sources that are affiliated with the subject, or do not provide in-depth coverage specifically about the subject. If you write an article based on these, it makes it harder to tell if the subject is notable. Shotgunning 50 references that are barely relevant does not establish notability and will discourage anyone from finding the citations that do establish notability.
- Paraphrase and summarize each source in as concise a form as possible. This further narrows down the sources into a notable core.
- Arrange the summaries into paragraph form, combining references where possible (but do not combine them to say something that neither source says). If there is not enough material to form at least a half a proper paragraph, that may be a sign that the subject simply is not notable.
- Create a draft using just the paragraphs based on unaffiliated sources, to clearly establish notability. Then expand it using affiliated or non-in-depth sources after notability is firmly established. If there's any doubts as to notability, you can point to the earliest state of your draft.
- The end result will be what you'd need to create whether or not you looked at the old version. Looking at the old version is an unnecessary step and the best it would do is leave a lot of dross. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Blackfyr: If it was deleted, the sources and material in the old version were useless. Otherwise it would not have been deleted. The best thing to do is:
- Yes, I know that it needs to cite acceptable sources, which was why I was asking if there was a way to "look at what was there to see if there's some way to put it into a more acceptable form", i.e. see what sources were cited and find out if there are more, acceptable, sources available now, seven years after the group has been around and performing. I do not know at this point what sources there are, as I was checking here (Wikipedia) first, and saw the article had been deleted. Now, since I have gone out of the way to re-explain my request, perhaps you'd be willing to respond to the request itself rather than taking issue with what you thought I was saying? Blackfyr (talk) 08:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)