User talk:His warrior

If you can indicate why the page is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page in question and leave a note on this page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Calton | Talk 16:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:This is my issakar.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Peripitus (Talk) 03:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sixteen Cities Wikipedia pic.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Peripitus (Talk) 03:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Sixteen Cities, 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/Sixteen Cities. 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. Ironholds (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit ("rant", as you called it), I understand your frustration, but adding to that discussion almost three weeks after it was concluded is not the right venue. Regarding the article itself, the community consensus seems to be that the band is not notable enough for inclusion. The existence of other articles of questionable notability is not a reason to have kept this one. Perhaps you can find some assistance in understanding the guidelines at

deletion review. (I should explain, though, that deletion review regards whether or not the discussion was properly closed as representing the consensus of the discussion and policies; it is not a place to reopen the discussion itself.) Also, if you have any questions, please feel free to address them to me directly. I'll be watching your talk page right here for a while.  Frank  |  talk  15:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I also sympathize with your frustration, however I do not agree that the inclusion criteria are insufficiently specific or clear. In this particular case, it seems to me that the band is pretty clearly below the threshold for inclusion. It's always possible that there are better sources available which would better establish notability, however, such sources did not come up readily on a google search, and nobody brought them up during the discussion. Anyway, as a participant in that deletion discussion, I'd be happy to talk it over as well if you think that would be helpful. -Pete (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well I guess I understand what you guys are talking about, however, would you mind if I showed you a very polite yet factual response that I wrote to one of the editors that deleted my article? It is kind of long, but it is not rude in any way, and I would really appreciate it if you guys would read it all. Please? Tell me if you would like me to post it on my talk page or one of yours. Swayze (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to read it. -Pete (talk)

Was this an email message? Are you posting someone's response as well? If so, please be mindful of privacy issues. And finally, I would note that I am the only editor (admin) who deleted the article; the others expressed opinions in a discussion and I closed the discussion by noting that the

WP:CONSENSUS was to delete it, which I then did.  Frank  |  talk  16:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• "Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable." - it may be on daily rotation an independent christian online radio station, but that doesn't mean it's a notable radio station. You will note that
  WP:CRYSTAL. http://www.jpgmag.com
  links me to a photographic/image magazine - not sure if that was your intent. New-Release Tuesday is not considered a reliable source because it is written by volunteers over the internet - any mug can post a review, it doesn't show a band is notable. For that same reason we don't consider Wikipedia, or other Wikis a reliable source.
• "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country," - it requires non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of the part they played in the tour - otherwise I could take my band to Fyfe, Alabama and claim I deserve an article. There was some stuff on the Gospel tour, but it failed the "non-trivial" bit, as it discussed the band in very little detail, mainly along the lines of "then Sixteen Cities played, blasting away the songs. At 9:30 Dude and the Other Musicians came on, and...".
• "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." - being the only band in a city doesn't really work there. Sixteen Cities would have to be the most noted representative of the local scene, or of a particular style. A good example I always use is
  reliable, independent sources
  showing that they are representative of a local style/scene.
• "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc." - I'm not finding any evidence of this CD being notable, and nothing on Downbeat Sounds really. Simply piecing a compilation CD together with your mates and some local bands doesn't really count.
• Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." - see "major radio network". The local FM station of a city of 40,000 inhabitants is not a major network, nor a network in any stretch of the word. The guideline refers to something like
  Citadel Media
  , not a local FM station.
• "Is cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre." - their mentorship program itself isn't the activities of the band as a unit. In any case, the only source you've given is a blog (yes, it's a blog) and primary - it's run by The Chronologic Internship Program. The first part is "cited in reliable sources" - the program's website, hosted on blogspot, does not fulfil this requirement.
• The radio singles would be fine, if they charted. Have they been placed on any charts anywhere? I know my favorite band (Pure Reason Revolution) initially only got through on charting singles.
• In any case the article was deleted through AfD, so the only place you can really get this reviewed is
  Deletion Review. Give me a poke if you end up doing so, but note that the people there normally require evidence that the initial deletion was obviously wrong. I haven't seen that so far. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Okay, so I reviewed your message, and you appear to be correct, but I do think the administrators need to be one-hundred percent clear as you were in your message, especially in the WP:Band article. That was quite helpful to me, what you said. SO do you think I should just wait till they get another CD made under that label, because their singles haven't been on charts as of yet, but they probably will be in the future. Thanks for all your help. Swayze (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until they get some interviews and the like with reliable sites, or their singles chart, or they release more albums, that sort of thing. Album releases are normally good for a few interviews, we can use those. Once something happens, bring it to me and if I think it passes WP:BAND I'll help you write the article myself and get it to a standard where it won't be deleted. Ironholds (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Ironholds' breakdown is very accurate and thorough. I'm glad this is helpful to you in understanding, and sorry if the initial discussion/decision did not provide enough information. It can be very time-consuming to write such a detailed breakdown, and you're right...we often don't go into that much detail. I'm glad this helped, and I will try in the future to be a little more specific in such discussions. -Pete (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]