Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rock and roll conservatory

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. If anyone believes they can address the notability issues and wants the page userfied, drop me a line with a link to this debate.Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rock and roll conservatory

edit
Rock and roll conservatory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Educational organization with no assertion of notability or significance, no references from reliable sources, no ghits of significance Madcoverboy (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The creator of this article is probably Joe Wiles, who is mentioned in this article as the owner and who has expanded several other articles to include his name. He has also created Strange occurrence, which is a band he is directly involved in and which probably qualifies for speedy deletion as self promotion or a nonnotable band. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC
  • I created Strange Occurrence and this article in an attempt to learn the Wikipedia code, culture, and formats. I chose these subjects because I have personal knowledge about them and thought they would be a good place to start. My article on Strange Occurrence does not qualify for deletion as a non-notable group. That article contained details about their placement on Radio & Records Chart and was about to be updated to include national tours, CD releases, record label information, and major festivals. I expanded one article, not several, to include Joe Wiles (as well as Eric Vickers and Steve Gale) factually into an article about Scott Hunter. And I removed Joe Wiles from this page because of the speculation of self-promotion, which it is not. Superhero77 (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't believe what? That I'm trying to learn Wikipedia? That I'm not Wiles? That I'm trying my damndest to gather references, but the library doesn't open until Monday? Some newspapers make it very hard to get back information. Ugh. Listen... I don't know why you've got a thing against me, but leave me alone. I don't care if you don't believe me. Just stick to the process and quit asserting your assumptions. You CAN'T believe me because if you did, you'd have to apologize for all the foolish things you acted on while under your wrong assumptions. Superhero77 (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:ORG; no news hits, no references to establish notability, and does not even explain why it should be. Also filled with fuzzy, non-encyclopedic content on the verge of WP:ADVERT. Arsenikk (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I composed this article because I have personal, unbiased knowledge on the subject. I'm learning the system and would appreciate some leniency while learning to cite references in the code. I feel it's a small, but notable organization due to the fact that it's owner, Joe Wiles (whose reference was removed from the article due to speculation of self-promotion), seems to be popularly viewed around the internet, teaching people how to play particular songs. On the Youtube hits alone, he's upwards of around a million. That doesn't include his Expert Village videos or Answerbag. He's the subject of much controversy in message boards because of the way he teaches bit parts of popular songs. That seems to reflect the general philosophy of the organization in using rock songs to teach about music theory. Any help citing references would be appreciated.Superhero77 (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • :"[P]ersonal, unbiased knowledge on the subject" is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Adding references is simple in Wikipedia and after two days, you should have been able to do so. Furthermore, you need to assert notability for this subject citing verifiable and reliable sources. This article fails all of these. —  BQZip01  —  talk 16:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ::Having personal knowledge was my motivation. I didn't intend for the final article to be based merely on that. Two days (one being a national holiday) is not enough time to research archived news. Superhero77 (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • :::Don't take it so personally. Why not concede it doesn't meet Wikipedia standards right now (which it sounds like you do), make a copy to a subpage on your user profile, and work on it until it meets our standards. No harm in that and it doesn't put you in this awful time crunch to get it done. Welcome to Wikipedia and I hope we can work this out, but there is no need to get stressed over it. —  BQZip01  —  talk 20:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • :::BTW, sorry about the motivation, I misunderstood what you were trying to say. Damn the English language and its ambiguity!!! —  BQZip01  —  talk 20:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ::::Thank you very much! Done. Your help and your non-confrontational manner is very appreciated. Forgive my ignorance as I'm new to Wikipedia, but your advice was what I needed from the beginning. I'll save this debate on my userpage and begin to address these issues. Superhero77 (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the article is changed fix the concerns listed above. —  BQZip01  —  talk 16:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concede Thank you BQZip01 Superhero77 (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2008 (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/Rock_and_roll_conservatory&oldid=1138311776"