Talk:Steven Wells/Archive 1
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Sjorford in topic Can I make a suggestion?
 | 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. |
Notability
I fail to see why anyone would query Wells's notability; he's written for years for the NME and The Guardian, two internationally known publications; many appearances on TV and radio; a number of books; directed videos; political activism; poetry... compared to some of the nonentities who get Wikipedia articles, he's a bloody titan. AuntFlo (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Probably because until today, after his death, the article only contained one source, a free Philadelphia weekly paper? Maybe all of his fans should have made this page better while he still lived. 174.152.233.124 (talk) 22:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. The deletion discussion here was an absolute joke. Users claimed that "it was up to me to prove he wasn't notable" and multiple users complained that "I'd never read the NME." It is absurd to expect people in other countries to be familiar with a British author when the article was completely unsourced until today. It was tagged in September 2008 as needing citations and nobody bothered to add any. In fact the only source was, as mentioned above, an article in a free Philadelphia weekly publication reporting that Steven Wells had cancer. Mikerichi (talk) 00:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- I can understand the reason for nomination. I agree about the lack of citations, and I can't find much coverage where Wells is the main subject, although what coverage there is suggests he is notable. snigbrook (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have no idea why all of these people insisting that he has such "notibility" (sic) couldn't be bothered to include any of these citations themselves. Someone who writes for a free Philadelphia weekly and is dying of cancer is clearly not "notibile" (sic) in his own right. Mikerichi (talk) 08:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Taking a tiny fraction of the time required to set up an AfD to Google his name would have immediately established his notibility.FrFintonStack (talk) 06:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- And why does that burden fall on me rather than the people who couldn't be bothered to provide any of these sources while the man was still alive??? If these sources are so obvious, why did the tag stating "this article needs sources" remain on this article for a year until the man died? There was exactly one source and that simply stated the man had cancer. Mikerichi (talk) 08:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Also see WP:GHITS Just about every Google hit simply states that the man died. Mikerichi (talk) 08:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about Google hits, but the fact that a plethora of links that come up demonstrate his notability. (Moreover, if print or well-known online media sources are stating that a person has died, or has cancer, that's practically the definition of notability: "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic".) That would have taken literally a second. You're right in that these could/should have added to the article previously to establish notability beyond any doubt, but the fact is they were out there as you would discovered had you made most cursory check rather than jumping straight to AfD. I think the fact that your AfD was snowballed, and the coverage it received in The Register, demonstrate my point amply well.FrFintonStack (talk) 10:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- I just tried to do what you suggested the above author do, and of the first 30 links on Google, 24 of them are new, specifically about this person's death, and didn't exist before yesterday. 5 are about a different Steven Wells, and exactly 1 of those 30 existed before Jun 25. How exactly is someone supposed to access Google results that didn't exist a day ago? 69.253.207.9 (talk) 11:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- For god's sake man, the reason why most of the Google hits are new and to do with his death is precisely because his death has generated a flurry of coverage, pushing other articles and pieces that deal with his writing further down. That in itself satisfies the basic criterion of notability I quoted above. This is the case whenever anyone of note dies. Moreover, could you please direct us to the guideline that states "Recent death does not establish notability", as you cited on your AfD, because it's not in WP:NOTE, WP:Notability (people) or Notability in WikipediaFrFintonStack (talk) 11:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- If it isn't listed in any of those notability sections, you've proved my point. And you've missed the point in that after removing the Google hits about his death, I found exactly 2 of the first 20 "Steven Wells" GHits were about him, both of which were blog posts. That surely isn't enough to establish notability, nevermind that it isn't even my job to try to establish notability. Mikerichi (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- That merely establishes that there are a lot of Steven Wells, not that one of them isn't notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- You are obviously new to Wikipedia but the burden of proof regarding establishing notability exists for those arguing that the page should be kept, not those arguing it should be deleted. You are about to be blocked from editing Wikipedia due to your personal attacks so I suggest you knock it off. Mikerichi (talk) 09:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not going to continue to argue Wells notability because its clearly established, both through provision of references and through the consensus of Wikipedia editors, and as such this is my final word on the subject. However, I feel obliged to point out that your insistence on excluding coverage of his death as evidence of notability appears to have no basis in Wikipedia policy. Your claim, "If it isn't listed in any of those notability sections, you've proved my point" is utterly perplexing. Please note the summing-up of notibility criteria I posted above; Wells meets this for his death alone because it received "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic". It's that simple. Thus, claims that articles about Wells merely refer to his death are irrelevant as nowhere in notability guidelines does it suggest that significant coverage is somehow excluded from demonstrating notability if it is prompted by the subject's death. If you believe that significant independent coverage of an individual's death (including in mass-circulation, nationally-distributed daily newspapers) does not provide evidence of notability, it is up to do to find a guideline that supports your position, or to successfully argue for the inclusion of one at the relevant page. I note that in your AfD you placed the supporting statement "Recent death does not establish notability" in quotation marks. Does such a guideline actually exist somewhere on Wikipedia? If so, please direct us to it. If not, please stop droning on about how hits only refer to his death, and please in future do not represent your own thoughts or opinions in a manner that creates the impression that they constitute Wikipedia policy.FrFintonStack (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- For the record, Mikerichi has been a member since 1 Feb 2008, and has made fewer than 40 edits, 17 of which are directly related to the matter at hand, and a further 12 on other AfDs. Andy Dingley has been a member since 15 March 2007 and has made almost 3000 edits this year alone (I gave up counting after that). Make of that what you will.FrFintonStack (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- You are obviously new to Wikipedia but the burden of proof regarding establishing notability exists for those arguing that the page should be kept, not those arguing it should be deleted. You are about to be blocked from editing Wikipedia due to your personal attacks so I suggest you knock it off. Mikerichi (talk) 09:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- That merely establishes that there are a lot of Steven Wells, not that one of them isn't notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- If it isn't listed in any of those notability sections, you've proved my point. And you've missed the point in that after removing the Google hits about his death, I found exactly 2 of the first 20 "Steven Wells" GHits were about him, both of which were blog posts. That surely isn't enough to establish notability, nevermind that it isn't even my job to try to establish notability. Mikerichi (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- For god's sake man, the reason why most of the Google hits are new and to do with his death is precisely because his death has generated a flurry of coverage, pushing other articles and pieces that deal with his writing further down. That in itself satisfies the basic criterion of notability I quoted above. This is the case whenever anyone of note dies. Moreover, could you please direct us to the guideline that states "Recent death does not establish notability", as you cited on your AfD, because it's not in WP:NOTE, WP:Notability (people) or Notability in WikipediaFrFintonStack (talk) 11:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- I just tried to do what you suggested the above author do, and of the first 30 links on Google, 24 of them are new, specifically about this person's death, and didn't exist before yesterday. 5 are about a different Steven Wells, and exactly 1 of those 30 existed before Jun 25. How exactly is someone supposed to access Google results that didn't exist a day ago? 69.253.207.9 (talk) 11:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about Google hits, but the fact that a plethora of links that come up demonstrate his notability. (Moreover, if print or well-known online media sources are stating that a person has died, or has cancer, that's practically the definition of notability: "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic".) That would have taken literally a second. You're right in that these could/should have added to the article previously to establish notability beyond any doubt, but the fact is they were out there as you would discovered had you made most cursory check rather than jumping straight to AfD. I think the fact that your AfD was snowballed, and the coverage it received in The Register, demonstrate my point amply well.FrFintonStack (talk) 10:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- I can understand the reason for nomination. I agree about the lack of citations, and I can't find much coverage where Wells is the main subject, although what coverage there is suggests he is notable. snigbrook (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. The deletion discussion here was an absolute joke. Users claimed that "it was up to me to prove he wasn't notable" and multiple users complained that "I'd never read the NME." It is absurd to expect people in other countries to be familiar with a British author when the article was completely unsourced until today. It was tagged in September 2008 as needing citations and nobody bothered to add any. In fact the only source was, as mentioned above, an article in a free Philadelphia weekly publication reporting that Steven Wells had cancer. Mikerichi (talk) 00:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Irrelevant; AuntFlo argues clearly that Wells meets notibility criteria (i.e. that there exists "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic") before mentioning any other wikipedia article. The "OTE" line is an aside, tacked on out of exasperation, not the thrust of his/her argument. At any rate, the conversation has moved on, and Wells notability has been clearly established.FrFintonStack (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'd just like to add my perspective as a working music critic. Debating Steven Wells' notability is an absolute goddamn joke-- among music journalists and anyone familiar with music criticism in general, "legendary" would be a more accurate word than "notable." He made his name as one of the most well-regarded writers for several of the most well-regarded publications in the field, and his contributions to the art have been massive and fairly well documented. Unfortunately for the shut-ins who like to become busybodies on this site, his greatest period of contribution was in the 1980s, so a simple Google search might not yield as much as actually going to a library would. Thanks for listening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.154.240 (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Many personal attacks on this talk page
A reminder to many on this page to read WP:PA. 173.100.3.240 (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- I would ask you please not delete any further material from this talk page. I have reinstated the sections you have deleted. — sjorford++ 19:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Those sections are clear personal attacks, calling people "goddamn busybodies etc." Please read WP:PA. 174.146.70.1 (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- I cannot help but note that you have repeatedly removed two lengthy comments added by myself that contained no personal attacks on any individual, nor contained any line even resembling, in letter or spirit, "goddam busybodies", as any user with basic reading skills can attested (unless you've removed them again in the interim). If you remove this section again, you will be reported for vandalism. There seem to be a lot of anonymous users here taking great offence at perceived minor slights against others. Hmm. FrFintonStack (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- For the record, we are talking about my edits of 22:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC) and 22:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)FrFintonStack (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- I cannot help but note that you have repeatedly removed two lengthy comments added by myself that contained no personal attacks on any individual, nor contained any line even resembling, in letter or spirit, "goddam busybodies", as any user with basic reading skills can attested (unless you've removed them again in the interim). If you remove this section again, you will be reported for vandalism. There seem to be a lot of anonymous users here taking great offence at perceived minor slights against others. Hmm. FrFintonStack (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Those sections are clear personal attacks, calling people "goddamn busybodies etc." Please read WP:PA. 174.146.70.1 (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Can I make a suggestion?
As much as I imagine this talk page is providing great amusement for Steven Wells in whichever version of the afterlife he chooses to inhabit, it really isn't getting us anywhere. So if nobody objects, I'll go ahead and archive the contentious discussions tomorrow, and we can get back to writing an encyclopedia. Any takers? — sjorford++ 18:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)