| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Redlink edit
Mr. Gorlitz has repeatedly removed a redlink, first because it was new (it is not; it's been there since the article was created), and second because of WP:WTAF, which is an opinion about how redlinks should be handled on the site (an opinion about which I must beg to differ). I cited WP:REDLINK, which, so far as I can tell, has more broad acceptance, for restoring the link, which, as the article states, is about a band that was signed to Atlantic Records and which released more than one album, which makes it a plausible target for an article. I doubt that Mr. Gorlitz has done extensive looking-about and determined that the band in question is definitively not worth writing an article about, but his wish to have "no redlinks please" is not something I think is good for the site, or wish to comply with without comment. Also...is this really worth fighting about? Chubbles (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- To quote from "When to create red links":
- Please do create red links to articles you intend to create, technical terms that deserve more treatment than just a dictionary definition, or topics which should obviously have articles.
- Keep in mind there are various notability guidelines (WP:NOTABILITY), which exist for a number of subjects, including people (WP:BIO). A red link to a non-notable person can end up being a link to a different person of the same name.
- in short, the redlink you're creating will never occur because the band does not meet notability guidelines. You have 24 hours to create the article and then it will be removed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- To quote from "'Dealing with existing redlinks":
- "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there exists no candidate article, or article section, under any name."
- What is the precedent for this 24-hour deadline? If there is not a consensus on this time limit, I will ignore it. Again...is this really worth your time and mine? Chubbles (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- The reason is exactly what you quoted, the band could not ever under current Wikipedia notability guidelines sustain an article. Feel free to look at those guidelines and indicate which of the twelve items this insignificant band meets? By the time I leave for work tomorrow if you can't supply at least that the link will be removed based on the grounds you have cited. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- One thing further, this isn't a personal attack against you or the linked band, it's a statement of policy. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- As I have already noted above, there is a credible possibility that the band in question meets WP:MUSIC and so should remain redlinked until a reasonable effort has been sustained to determine source materials (which may not be obvious, being as the band was active in the 1970s and has a name difficult to Google). I will be returning to school in the fall and will have access to much better source material, and so may begin writing more articles then; I may look into this one at that time, although I do not intend those words to be binding. You do not have a policy to stand behind, only a controversial essay, and your own (decidedly strident) opinions about how articles should work. I have no intention of being beholden to your arbitrary deadline and will not be browbeaten into action. I need not remind you that WP:3RR is nigh. Chubbles (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- What in the world is a "credible possibility"? Either they meet WP:BAND or they don't. If they do, feel free to offer the evidence. I won't make you create the article. If they don't then let's not play this game any longer. If, in the fall, you find information about the band that shows that they do meet WP:BAND, then you can create an article then and re-link. You don't have a policy to stand behind either. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've decided I can't care about this anymore. The amount it really matters is inversely proportional to the amount of effort you've put into it. You "win", I guess; congratulations on being a part of another of Wikipedia's lamest edit wars. Chubbles (talk) 12:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- You caused the lame edit war by insisting that the link remain in place when it didn't need to be. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've decided I can't care about this anymore. The amount it really matters is inversely proportional to the amount of effort you've put into it. You "win", I guess; congratulations on being a part of another of Wikipedia's lamest edit wars. Chubbles (talk) 12:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- As for WP:3RR, you're at the limit and I could still apply one more edit, but that would not be appropriate. Your first edit was reverting the removal of the link. Please don't threaten. I know the rules. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- What in the world is a "credible possibility"? Either they meet WP:BAND or they don't. If they do, feel free to offer the evidence. I won't make you create the article. If they don't then let's not play this game any longer. If, in the fall, you find information about the band that shows that they do meet WP:BAND, then you can create an article then and re-link. You don't have a policy to stand behind either. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- As I have already noted above, there is a credible possibility that the band in question meets WP:MUSIC and so should remain redlinked until a reasonable effort has been sustained to determine source materials (which may not be obvious, being as the band was active in the 1970s and has a name difficult to Google). I will be returning to school in the fall and will have access to much better source material, and so may begin writing more articles then; I may look into this one at that time, although I do not intend those words to be binding. You do not have a policy to stand behind, only a controversial essay, and your own (decidedly strident) opinions about how articles should work. I have no intention of being beholden to your arbitrary deadline and will not be browbeaten into action. I need not remind you that WP:3RR is nigh. Chubbles (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- One thing further, this isn't a personal attack against you or the linked band, it's a statement of policy. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Chubbles, the group Creation (the one that Leon was with) was not a "Christian band." And that's the main reason why I removed the redlink. — Musdan77 (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- The reason is exactly what you quoted, the band could not ever under current Wikipedia notability guidelines sustain an article. Feel free to look at those guidelines and indicate which of the twelve items this insignificant band meets? By the time I leave for work tomorrow if you can't supply at least that the link will be removed based on the grounds you have cited. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- To quote from "'Dealing with existing redlinks":
See [1] (and [2]) and [3] Show only two releases. Not on major labels so they don't meet WP:BAND 2, 3, 5. No awards so there goes 8. So feel free to see if they meet 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, or 12. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)