Talk:Ilpo Väisänen

Notability

@Elmidae: Yoo have reverted my article to a redirect because in your opinion independent notability was not demonstrated and you claim that sources only pertain to activities as band member. I really wonder how you can see that. In the whole article four sentences deal with Pan Sonic. All the other information demonstrate that Väisänen is a notable solo artist.

• He released an album with Mika Vainio and Alan Vega, which was well received.[1]
• He constantly releases in another project with Dirk Dresselhaus, which has nothing to do with Pan Sonic.[2], [3], ...
• Väisänen has released various solo albums and EPs on well-known labels such as Raster-Noton, Mego and Kvitnu.
• Six of his releases are full albums, which have been discussed and well reviewed by e.g. Resident Advisor, The New Noise, The Quietus, de:bug, igloo, [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]
• Väisänen is touring as a solo artist and with Die Angel in Europe and North America at festivals like Send&Receive, CTM, Les Siestes Electriques, Teatro Fundamenta Nueve, Synch, etc.[10]
• He also created sound installations such as Sharp Sine Square Wire Chamber Trio, which was presented at the de:Architekturforum Oberösterreich.

So, 90% of the article deals with his solo work. Could you please let me know how this justifies a redirect to a project that he is not involved anymore since 2010? Best, --NiTen (talk) 07:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@NiTenIchiRyu: It's all good if you present references that document these claims. When I redirected the article, there was no notability-demnonstrating sourcing for the post-2010 period (the ref for the art installation is not independent of the organizer and thus not usable for notability establishment). Add reliable, independent (third-party) references for the above bullets (including actual reviews for the albums), and we are probably good to go. That's the "demonstrated" part :) Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Elmidae: In my opinion I have shown you enough independent sources in the article and here on the talk page. If have added further in the text above now. Which information do you doubt about the notability? --NiTen (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@NiTenIchiRyu: It's certainly not present in the article, and it does the article no good while it's on the talk page. Integrate it into the text. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Elmidae: I‘m not sure if I understand you correctly? Do you expect me to revert to my version and add further sources there? I have to admit that the processes here in en.wikipedia differ very much from the ways of working in de.wikipedia. Best, --NiTen (talk) 10:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@NiTenIchiRyu: Basically, yes? It's unlikely that someone else would do the work of inserting these cites. As long as your additions address the perceived issue, no one is going to fault you for reverting - after all the best outcome is another functional article :) What would the process be on deWP? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Elmidae: I don't expect anybody else to do "my" work. I'm an active wikipedian since 2004 and wrote/re-wrote a few thousand articles in these 16 years. So actually I know what to do. :) Basically none of my own articles has ever been deleted and for nearly none of my articles anybody doubted my sources. In the last months I figured out that after I did the research for the German article it's actually a minor step to translate it for the English one, so that en.wikipedia also can benefit from the research. Anyhow. In the German wikipedia, if someone would doubt the notability of a subject he or she would nominate the article for quality improvement or deletion (if the notability is really doubted at all). Then we would discuss this issue and I would present further sources in the discussion or add these to the article - but (that's the difference) only if this is really needed. If however anybody has "decided" that the subject is not notable and changed the article to a redirect, it would be considered quite rude to revert to the old version of the article. This would be considered a edit war and could end in an short term ban (of the article or the person reverting).

In the German wikipedia we use inline citations only for facts that are disputed. To add dozens of reviews (that can be found via Google in 30 seconds) would be considered extreme refbloating. I mean what is the point? You doubt that Väisänen is notable. I demonstrated that besides his longterm activity as member of Pan Sonic - as a matter of fact - he has released a half dozen solo albums under his birth name and as I-LP-O-In-Dub or I-LP-ON. He also released with Alan Vega and has a long running collaboration with Dirk Dresselhaus as Die Angel. That these albums have been reviewed in international notable press outlets such as Resident Advisor, The Quietus, De:Bug has also been demonstrated here. At this point in the discussion anybody I know in German wikipedia would consider this information as undisputed. So what is the point to copy dozens of reviews into the article text and bloat it beyond recognition?

My question is: What do you really doubt? Do you doubt that Väisänen is working as a solo artist since 10 years and also records with other (notable) musicians such as Alan Vega, most notably in another project with Dirk Dresselhaus? In my point of view, all of this should be undisputed. These are plain facts and all of this already was demonstrated in my version of the article (through weblinks and inline citations, where necessary). And IF this is undisputed, it really seems like a bad decision to change the article into a redirect to Pan Sonic, because everything what's notable about Väisänen in the last 10 years is lost.

Looking for your feedback. Best, --NiTen (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@NiTenIchiRyu: The enWP hardcase way of disputing notability would be to send the article to WP:AfD. I consider this unnecessary since you claim to have all the required sources to show notability, thus it's just an issue of article improvement rather than subject suitability. But the sourcing present in the article must demonstrate that the person passes our notability guidelines. If you wish to phrase it that way, then notability is always disputed unless demonstrated in-article. Here, this majorly rides on whether the subject has had a well-recognized solo career after his band membership, thus we require sources that clearly show this. No necessity for pasting the album reviews into the article - a single sentence along the lines of "His work during this period was well received critically. (three or four substantial refs)" would do just fine. But the statement and the links need to be there. As, again, they are not in the previous version of the article [11]. So please go ahead and just add this stuff. This discussion will be sufficient proof that no edit-warring is going on.

(enWP procedures do differ from deWP ones in many respects. I assume this is one instance. Das Portieren von deWP-Artikeln ohne jeglichen Einzelnachweis ist immer die reine Freude, vom generell verquasten Institutions-Stil ganz zu schweigen... :/ ) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Elmidae: next try. What do you say? :) Best, --NiTen (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@NiTenIchiRyu: Looks good to me now! Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)