User talk:Gusdeadman

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ukexpat (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

I have nominated The Ogdens, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ogdens. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ukexpat (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Gusdeadman.

I just wanted to contact you away from the AfD to let you know that I am not out to get your articles deleted come what may!

I know that for a new user, when an article is nominated for deletion, it can feel like a personal thing. As far as I (and most other editors) are concerned, this is nothing to do with the editor involved - it is purely about the article.

I have participated in several AfDs (I have even started a few myself), and on some of them I have changed my

!vote as a result of the discussion - that is the purpose of the discussion, to allow editors to give arguments for and against the deletion. If I have suggested deleting the article, and an argument presented in favour of keeping it is compelling, I will change my decision (see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gumrah (1993 film)‎, where the arguments in favour of keeping the article were so compelling in my opinion that I changed from delete to keep - although the fate of that article is still to be decided!; or see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I am the Lord your God

, which is an article that I nominated for deletion, but the arguments presented persuaded me to withdraw the nomination).

1. Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy#Deletion_review
   for details of this. If the article is deleted, and then it charts, just contact me and I will help you get it re-created.
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ogdens:
   1. Provide evidence that any of the singles charted (generally, for the UK this means in the
      UK Singles Chart; in America, the Billboard charts - for other countries, see List_of_record_charts
      )
   2. Provide evidence that apart from at the time of release (when obviously you get a lot of publicity, singles sent to reviewers, etc) there is anything significant written about them. I would expect to see something written about them in a
      reliable_source
      that shows that they were/are considered an important part of musical/independent musical history.

Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks but I am extremely annoyed about the way this has happened. I had a technical problem uploading an image and instead of helping me Ukexpat goes against the procedure for improving an article and sends it off for deletion, then goes through all my previous contributions and sticks those on the delete list too. It's very negative, elitist, and exclusive. This borders on the juvenile gang-type culture, tripping the newby up. An encyclopedia should be inclusive. I appreciate the need for verification but there are better ways to do it than this as the official advice says.

I also disagree with the criteria on noteability. Notability is relative and subjective, an egalitarian institution such as this should recognise this. Using the criteria people have given so far, that basically rely sales statistics, the only records that are significant would be those by people who are already well documented. That's not an encyclopedia, that's Debrett's Who's Who. We cannot say who or what in the grand scheme of things is noteable or significant. I look in encyclopedias to find out more about something not necessarily those things that are already well known, but the things that aren't. How is wikipedia to be of use if it doesn't cover this? Gusdeadman (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • I am not going to comment on Ukexpat, however I will say that although the guidelines say that if possible the article should be improved. If no reliable sources of information, showing significant coverage can be found, then it is right to nominate articles for deletion. From what little I know of Ukexpat, they check for references before nomination, as I do.
  • You are perfectly entitled to disagree with the criteria on notability - however, they have been discussed on a very long-term basis since Wikipedia was founded. You are right that record sales are not the only criteria - but the band fails to meet other criteria as well. If they are so notable, I would expect to be able to find:

1. Significant references to the band well after they released the singles. Coverage at the time would be easy to find, as bands send out their singles to be reviewed. Where is any coverage from the mid-90s or beyond, where (for example) NME have an article about the band showing how significant they were/are?
2. References in some academic works - if they are so notable, I would have expected someone to have referenced them in a work about Indie music, or music of the 80s - I could find no one who appeared to think that the band was significant enough to warrant a mention in their academic work
3. Mentions in books - where do they receive significant mention in any books about the Indie music scene or 80s music? Surely if they were notable, someone would have mentioned them - and there have been plenty of books on the subject published.

• • From what you said, I would expect this band to have been mentioned in other encyclopedia - where is there entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica? in Encarta? in other well known encyclopedias?
  • Basically, for me to be persuaded that this band's article should be kept, I need to see coverage apart from when the singles were released to show their significance to the Indie music scene, to 80s music, or to music in general. I have been unable to find anything like this.
  • Incidently, there are
    other wikis around which have less stringent criteria for inclusion - perhaps you could try one of those, if this article ends up being deleted. Or, you could create your own wiki (using wiki software
    ) on a website that you own yourself - then you can make the rules about what can be included or not!
  • I am sorry that you feel that wikipedia is elitist, but to be honest I do not agree with you on this - there are over 3 million articles, a lot of which would never be seen in a traditional encyclopedia - but which meet the criteria for inclusion. I hope that this experience does not put you off contributing to Wikipedia - I would advise you to start with adding sourced information to existing articles - when you have experience in this area, then create articles - but obviously they need to meet our criteria!
  • If you have any questions, feel free to contact me! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Gusdeadman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #18668 was submitted on Jul 06, 2017 21:39:33. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dead Man's Curve (band) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No coverage whatsoever.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. scope_creep^Talk 12:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]