Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of free party sound systems

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator. Kevin 08:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of free party sound systems

This is a fairly indiscriminate collection of info, so it fails

WP:V. None of the entries have their own articles, so I have to question the notability as well. Kevin 09:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Did you guys read the discussion on the
Wikipedia is not a collection of external links
. Many are mentioned in the following books:
  • De Haro S., Estève W. 3672 La Free Story, Trouble Fête, ISBN 291425301X
  • Petersen, V. No System, Steidl, ISBN 388243645X
  • Van Bezouw C. Sonique Village, ISBN 9090159932
others
and, as I put it on the talk page ...
All the systems on the list qualify under the following spec:
For performers outside of mass media traditions:
  • Has established a tradition or school in a particular genre.
The tradition/school can be defined as
Czechtek or teknival. Mujinga 00:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
While this may skirt the edge of being an indiscriminate collection the way the current policy reads, the verification policy is not negotiable. Each entry on the list is a statement of fact that XXX sound system has performed at YYY event. These facts need to be verified, per
reliable source for each entry, or a blanket source if it's a book or suchlike. I don't consider each sound system's web site as a reliable source, because they are not independant. Kevin 09:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Interesting point Kevin, but if I may respond, I would say that I believe the entries on the list meet the
List of mathematicians. Further, if you agree this is not an indiscriminate collection of data (and it's really not!) the doubt over verifiability is not in itself a reason to delete. The list can be edited and made better, for example i just added the three book references i quoted above. Verifiability is indeed a problem, as it always is with recent history. Perhaps the introductory paragraph describing criteria for inclusion can be improved with your help? Mujinga 10:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't agree with the argument "such and such does not comply with policy, so this shouldn't have to either". As I said, each and every entry has to be verifiable. With most Wikipedia lists the entries have their own article, which should provide verification for inclusion on the list. Almost all of these entries have no article, so the verification must be in this article. I'm in favour of removing the redlinks from those other lists if they have been there more than a few days.
The indiscriminate argument could be gotten over with a good introductory paragraph, which I can help with if the article survives.
The bottom line though is that without verification, the article should be deleted.
WP:V states that if an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. --Kevin 10:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I also don't agree with the argument "such and such does not comply with policy, so this shouldn't have to either". My argument was actually that I don't believe every item on a list needs to be independently verifiable and I gave the other lists as examples, but strictly speaking you are correct on this point and actually for this article I can see that this criterion helps prevent vandalism.
As I hoped you noticed, I am busy adding some "reputable, reliable, third-party sources" to the article in a References section. For example, 3672 La Free Story has a list of about 100 systems on page 187. We will ignore the systems' own websites for now even though these could be argued to be official sites operating in the same way as artists' websites do and they often contain fotos, writings, music and other documentation. I could add external links which document groupings of sound systems such as Brighton Alliance of sound systems and Czech Free Tekno. Also, Wikipedia:Notability (music) states that Another good source is Discogs (http://www.discogs.com), useful here because many sound systems (eg Metek or Foxtanz)have eponymous record labels. With the addition of such verification I think that the list can stay. Mujinga 11:33, 3 July 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_free_party_sound_systems&oldid=1070258605"