Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Obvious consensus to delete and salt. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Post-Grunge (2nd nomination)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Northwest Post-Grunge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A bad fatih recreation of the article that by rights should have remained deleted on both A9 and G4 grounds, this article returns to the community less than a month after its was correctly deleted because the original filer refuses to abide by WP:CONSENUS and has already repeatedly insiuated that he will recreate the article again and again until such time as it meets the standards required for inclusion (Talk:Northwest Post-Grunge,[1]). The GNG and NALBUM issues raised have not been addressed in any meaningful way beyond the addition of sources from the originally deleted version which the previous afd already established as insufficient for the purpose of demonstrating notability - in point of fact the entirely article was pasted as was and then worked on in the main space in order to circumvent community standards. The article refuses to die, having already been deleted four different times [2], so I'm moving for deletion AND WP:SALT this time. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwest Post-Grunge for the previous AfD on this album, just one month ago, in which the consensus was to delete. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 2. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 12:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt Per my discussion at the DRV, this article fails WP:GNG. While additional sources have been added since my comments, including a several-sentence review in Gavin Rocks, none of the other sources are close. I'd prefer a salt - if this is recreated, it can be done in draft space. SportingFlyer T·C 12:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not established by brief, regional reviews. Take note that the creator is also spinning out articles for the obscure bands on the compilation contribs (Mar19 - present) that may need to be addressed as well. I have looked through a few and the sourcing is scant. ValarianB (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two non-trivial sources on this article. The band pages I'm creating are supported by non-trivial sources as well. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Album passes on two non-trivial sources everyone. I see some of you acknowledge Gavin Report, but not the other. That qualifies as multiple, right? Leitmotiv (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources isn’t the issue here, it’s your disruptive editing and refusal to abide by consensus, which was unanimously in favor of deleting the article three weeks ago. And the fact that you can’t see that further reinforces my belief that you need to be sanctioned for wasting our time - again - when you were already told to let this die - twice: once at the afd, and then again when speedy deleted on A7/G4 grounds. 2600:1011:B125:2D5B:21BF:EE1E:AED6:5B3C (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The album does not satisfy any of the musical notability criteria. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Unfortunately, I see two editors who are being aggressive and are pushing the limits of civility, User:Leitmotiv, and User:TomStar81, who is an admin. I do not see bad faith by Leitmotiv, only stubbornness, which is undesirable but is not bad faith. Enthusiastic stubborn editors should sometimes be ignored rather than counter-attacked. I don't think we needed an WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I see stubbornness in me too - out of a love for wikipedia content. I also agree that the admin involved is knee-jerk reacting as a defense of their friend who nominated the article for speedy deletion on incorrect grounds that it was identical. @Robert McClenon: I would like to see history that this article really has been brought up for deletion 5 times, by me. I'm not disputing that, but I also don't recall that. How did the article survive the first 3 times without having non-trivial sources? It just seems odd that in one argument TomStar81 is saying 5 times, and in this one, 2 times. Which is it? It's one thing to say 5 times in as many days, but if it's 5 times in twice as many years, that's a different story. I don't remember what I worked on in 2009 to any great extent. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Guilt as charged. I had a bad, bad, BAD experince at DR about two years ago which I am still pissed over, which is the reason for the ANI: I would have blocked for two weeks without question, but I am under the influence of my emotions and a little too involved in this to act with a neutral hand, which means the community needs to weigh the case and make the call here because I don't trust myself to - and I'm not dragging an otherwise innocent editor down with me. Its an attempt at AGF on my part, which hopefully counts for something. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - (Largely repeated from WP:ANI) - User:Leitmotiv is stating a good-faith but serious misunderstanding of the relationship between verifiability and notability, and I think that is the whole problem. They say at WP:ANI: "To determine it's non-notable it basically has to have no notable sources (at least on the current grounds of argument), right?" Wrong. If it has no notable sources, it is non-notable. But the existence of sources does not establish notability in themselves. The sources verify the content of the article. If what the text of the article says is not notable, the sources will not change that. Sources are a necessary but not sufficient condition. The idea that sources are THE key to acceptance or retention of an article is a common myth in Wikipedia. In this case, the problem is the album doesn't satisfy the album notability criteria. User:Leitmotiv is not acting in bad faith, only mistaken as to policy.
    Ok I just posted at the ANI and came here next. I see your comment about "If what the text of the article says is not notable" and that may be my hangup right there. How do I know if the content is notable or not, even if it is in a notable source? What's the criteria? I've looked at WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM per everyone's argument for deletion and I don't see anything to instruct me about how to judge if the content of a notable source is in fact notable. I am very willing to learn here everyone, I just don't think I fully understand what "notable" content specifically refers to. Being the type of person I am, I often need to be held by the hand and pointed to the exact thing because I've found wikipedia's help section to be very unintuitive, and honestly, it has a horrible search engine. Things that you would think should pop up number 1 in the search results typically don't appear until way down the list of results, or at least out of reach that I give up searching for it. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment to User:TomStar81 - User:Leitmotiv is seriously wrong as to notability, but is not acting in bad faith. Users with wrong ideas on policy are a more complicated disruption than bad-faith users, because their content should be reverted but their conduct is not blockable.
    Thank you thank you thank you! I don't feel I'm acting in bad faith either. Heated? Sure. Passionate, heck yes. Every attempt of mine has been to improve the articles as I understand wikipolicy (in error or not). I felt the speedy deletion was in error and the deletion discussion agreed. Does the article still appear to fail AfD? It appears so, because there's consensus here, however - no matter what the results are at this discussion, the thing I want to walk away with is a greater understanding of, well the things I'm not understanding - the notability part. I have been operating under the premise that if I can find non-trivial sources that meet WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM that that should be enough. Apparently not! I want to learn more about what makes something notable and how can you tell? I want cold hard data! Please, and thank you. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Salt - I have no reason to think that an expansion of the article will introduce anything new that will satisfy the musical notability criteria. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. I am in agreement with comments already made about the events leading up to this AfD. --John B123 (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Where can I go to sort out my confusion with notable non-trivial sources versus notable content? I feel that the tags I'm seeing at the top of articles are misleading when they say it needs notable sources, yet notable sources are provided, but editors still claim the content is still not notable. In other words the tag to improve the article does not directly confront what is really needed. And because I don't understand the lack of notability within notable sources, I need some sort of instructional video, a page or talk thread that clears up the confusion for me. WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM have not sufficed, despite everyone citing those wikipolicies. @Robert McClenon: has been the only one willing to attempt to recognize I'm not up to speed, that I've fallen into some sort of common "myth" at Wikipedia. So far as I can tell, it appears the measurement of notability within a notable article is left at the discretion of opinion, since the tags we apply to these articles only requests non-trivial sources be applied, not that the content itself is unnotable. If this myth is as pervasive at Robert McClenon suggests it is, we need to fix some of the policy to clarify as it's too ambiguous. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Start here and the links on that page.
In particular, consider: "You can cite numerous, published, reliable, secondary, independent sources and it will not help establish notability if they do not treat the topic substantively – think generally two or more paragraphs of text focused on the topic at issue. Remember: it is much better to cite two good sources that treat a topic in detail, than twenty that just mention it in passing. Moreover, citation overkill to sources containing mere passing mentions of the topic is a badge of a non-notable topic..." This seems to me one of the areas where you are running into issues with this article. Lard Almighty (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to User:Leitmotiv - I don't think that any policies need to be fixed. If there is a specific policy that is ambiguous, please point it out and it can be reworked. Wikipedia policies are complex. It is not always possible to provide a simple unambiguous summary of complex policies. A simple summary of complex policies is likely to be, and is, an overly simple summary that is wrong. The idea that reliable sources are essential to acceptance of an article is correct. The idea that reliable sources will guarantee the acceptance of an article is incorrect. Many inexperienced good-faith editors and many inexperienced bad-faith editors have the simplistic idea that having enough sources is a sufficient condition for acceptance of an article. It is a necessary condition, but not sufficient. Some people have difficulty understanding the difference between necessary conditions and sufficient conditions. If there is a policy that oversimplifies, it should be fixed, but I think that the problem is that some editors simply oversimplify things because it is easier (but wrong). I don't think that the policies need to be reworked. If they do, we can discuss at Village Pump. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert McClenon:I get what you are saying. However... I'm just having trouble when people cite policy, or the latest help from Lard Almighty linking WP:NERROR. I believe I understand these help articles in full, but none of the three articles cited in the AfDs directly confront the issue of what makes something un-notable even if sufficiently cited. Like when @John B123: tags Berbati's Pan as possibly not meeting notability standards, and the tag asks us to "[cite] reliable secondary sources that are independent". Well, that's all the article has, is four reliable, independent, and non-trivial sources. But you're telling me, that the issue isn't what the tag is saying, but that even the notable sources aren't discussing notable content. I'm failing to find wiki-help content that discusses how to glean that from a source. As far as I can tell, it appears to be a matter of opinion among editors, which may help me in a talk page or AfD, but it doesn't help me going forward on my own creating articles. I'm conflicted, because Lard Almighty says 2 good sources are better than 4 trivial sources, yet Berbati's Pan, in my opinion, has 4 really good sources. Each directly discusses the subject matter in a non-trivial way (3 have headlines directly about Berbati's Pan, with full articles) and the other, a book, devotes an entire half column to the venue. I feel like I'm going around in circles trying to understand what everyone is telling me. I understand what a notable source looks like, I don't understand what unnotable content within a notable source looks like, and no wiki-help content that I've been directed to sheds light on that subject matter. It appears to me, that it's at the discretion of Wikipedian opinions, which isn't immediately useful to my growth here at Wikipedia. Leitmotiv (talk) 00:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to User:Leitmotiv - No. Apparently either I haven't adequately explained Wikipedia policies, or you don't understand. You are not the only editor who has conflated two different policies, notability and verifiability. Sources don't make a subject notable. They only verify the notability of the subject. I personally think that many inexperienced Wikipedia editors, including yourself, either mislead themselves or are misled into thinking that sources are the key to acceptance of an article, when in fact sources are only one of two tests that must both be passed. On looking at the example that you provide of tagging a bar, I see that part of the problem is that the wording of the tag is problematic. Establishing notability is more than a matter of providing sources. However, on further reviewing our policies, I am half inclined to agree with you, User:Leitmotiv, that our policies are ambiguous, because I do see how general notability is poorly defined and appears to be a matter of sources. In the case in point, however, which is Northwest Post-Grunge, there is a special notability guideline, and the deletion discussion is over whether it meets album notability, which is about musical criteria, and not just about sources.
  • Comment to User:Leitmotiv - Maybe this discussion needs to be continued at the Teahouse or at Village Pump.
  • Comment - Can someone else either try to explain to User:Leitmotiv the difference between verifiability and notability, or can someone explain to me how verifiability and notability are the same?

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Northwest_Post-Grunge_(2nd_nomination)

Leave a Reply