Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuvaputki

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 keep. Despite claims of sockpuppetry, after 13 days there are no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator and 2 "keep" arguments from neutral editors. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kuvaputki

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

article is about a music dvd that, despite extensive 'pseudo-citation' (references to false or trivial sources) by the article's sole editor, fails all notability tests as a movie or music Uucp (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before this articles for deletion page existed the talk page the previous editor cited claims which do make this notable by it being best selling.

disagree that it was "shown at minor festivals." Sonar is a high profile and noteworthy festival. As is Buenos Aires International Film Festival, the Milan Film Festival, The National Museum of Finland, the Museum of Contemporary Art in Barcelona, the Kunsthalle Wein in Austria. This should meet the criterion, since it was shown at significant museums and festivals in multiple countries.

Perhaps bestselling should not be cited, but as of today, the film is number 11 in electronic music in France. [Amazon FR] Included is a dated grab [Amazon FR
Also in England it's is ranked as of today, #83. amazon.uk dated screen grab

93.182.138.10 (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, per discussion of the Edward Quist AFD, this appears to be one of a number of sock puppets trying to hijack the vote to delete this and Quist's personal page, which is also under AFD. Uucp (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This belongs here as it refutes that the work is notable.
Also there aren't any "false" citations. While the below publications aren't the Rolling Stone, the publications aren't frivolous, negligible, minor in the appropriate genre. The charge the triviality is entirely subjective.
[idiomag] isn't a false or trivial source.
The reference in Earplug magazine link was bad but there is different link in which it is noted This is not self-published, and is magazine
The article in Dagheisha is written by the Italian journalist Lorenzo Becciani
D-side is a prominent magazine in the appropriate genre. F Lee001 (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of Kuvaputki has a history of creating sock puppet accounts to try to salvage his personal page and this one when hit by an AFD. I am extremely skeptical of defense from somebody with a newly created account who has never done anything except try to prevent deletion of Edward Quist-linked pages. (Watch, Quist will now create new sock puppets and have them make a few trivial edits to third party pages before stopping by here to beg us not to delete his vanity pages) Uucp (talk)

Allegations of Sock Puppeting
I made the edits from 93.182.133.56, but not 93.182.138.10. Furthermore, those that use the same internet service provider, are not the same person. While I can see how you see this as a red flag, it is in no way proof that I am a sock puppet. From your line of thinking when one who uses an IP address from the same ISP, they are the same person, people do edit from dynamic ip addresses, most people do have dynamic ips. I now see the importance of creating an account. As for the claim a sock puppet editing this page, for further transparency, I created this account so my edits are associated with my new found user name. I know I should not take the sock puppet allegations personally, but I am NOT Quist, have no connections with him. I am just a "regular" person, who is passionate about work in this genre. I am not hiding my identity, sock puppeting, in any way. I'll even give my real name, Frank Lee, with nothing to hide.
Doesn't the burden of proof rest on the prosecution?
Instead of decrying I am a sock puppet, why not not refute my discussion?
Regardless, of who I am, throwing out the case on the assumption of my being a sock puppet does not negate my input. You did not refute the claims of my previous post, just called me a sock puppet.

Although I have no vested interest, this film is worthy of notability.
And to talk about patently false claims Uucp cited in the Quist AfDthat this article was written by him, let it be noted the signer of the article is Valerio Mannucci writing for the popular Nero magazine. Is it noted that it is a bad review? What on earth would make an artist write something bad about his work.
Also, the above language is inferring that that I will beg "you," which really means the the Wikipedia collective, to not delete the page.
An attack on notability should be one of civil discourse, not authoritarianism.
No one is begging. I am simply refuting your allegations of "false citation." While you may or may not have some have more administrative powers, the beauty of Wikipedia is that there is no "centralized you" who wields total judgment.
I am simply making the case that the claims of non notability are erroneous.
Surely there are others, which are more experienced wiki editors than I and have more insight to this notable genre and Experimental Music and film, who should be brought into this discussion.
The previous editor's remarks which maintain the citations are trivial are highly subjective.
The flippant above quote from above saying, "Watch, Quist will now create new sock puppets and have them make a few trivial edits to third party pages before stopping by here to beg us not to delete his vanity pages" seems so cynical and biased, that instead of discussion, verdict has already been made with the assumption, that I am a sock puppet. You're basing the consideration of deletion in part from your "prediction" of what what will happen.
I'm not saying "Let him keep his vanity pages." I'm just making the claim that the work is notable for being part of high profile museum exhibits and has a noteworthy subject Pan Sonic, and the director as being noteworthy for being shown at major modern art museums and film festivals.

Being new to editing doesn't make one a sock puppet. A new editor has every right to contribute, it's the nature of the "encyclopedia" anyone can edit.
Nowhere am I or the other editor providing nonfactual information.
Simply because I'm focusing on an article for deletion that I feel deserves defense, and am a new editor in no was proves my alleged sock puppet status.

Notability
There is the claim that the music fails the criteria for notability.The BBC doesn't seem to think so. There aren't any "false" or so called "pseudo-citations". While the other below publications aren't the Rolling Stone, the publications aren't frivolous, negligible, or minor in the appropriate genre. The charge the triviality is entirely subjective.
idiomag isn't a false or trivial source.
The Earplug link can be found here and was written by Phillip Sherburne who is a prominent journalist in the genre.
The article in Dagheisha is written by the Italian journalist Lorenzo Becciani.
D-side is a prominent magazine in the appropriate genre.
The subjects of the DVD Pan Sonic seem to meet the criteria as does their release Kesto.
Kuvaputki is a Pan Sonic release as the cover only states their name with the title. Pan Sonic works with such prominent acts such as Alan Vega of Suicide, F. M. Einheit of Einstürzende Neubauten and Bjork who interviewed for television Mika Vainio of Pan Sonic. This release is especially notable as it is their first audio/visual endeavor.

It was reviewed in Boomkat. Which is prominent in the genre and used as sources in many wiki articles.
As well as Koncurrent
Noted in el sueño del esquimal

Festivals, Museums, and Galleries As mentioned from the other editor, it was shown at

Sonar. Not only once in 2000 as noted in in Touch Music and in 2008 (Click on Kuvaputki link of that link page.)
Buenos Aires Festival
The Kiasma Museum of Contemporary Art here is the listing of the showing if you click screenings.
Kunsthalle Wein this listing is here and here listed as Edward Quist Pan Sonic but also mentioned in Nero
Barcelona Museum of Contemporary Art with its listing here.
A review by Rough Trade
The Milan Film Festival
The Flatpack Festival

Even if having such prominent associated acts with Pan Sonic and the museum showings are slighted as inherited notability, yesterday Amazon FR list the DVD at number 18, that the time of the grab from yesterday. Submitted is a pdf of a print out that is dated. Here is today's similiar pdf And Amazon FR's main page on the product Today it is listing that in France, it is charting which does makes it notable as a best seller.
The article should be cleaned up, but not deleted.
Further this film was"screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release, which is the case with Sonar showing it in 2000 and 2008. F Lee001 (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the listing of trivial sources convinces me further that there is nothing notable here. For example, appearing in a catalog at the BBC does not make you notable, and listing this as supposed proof of notability demonstrates that there is no "there" there. Uucp (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, regardless of that BBC article which should have been omitted, the point is that Pan Sonic and their work is notable to the BBC's John Peel.
Just picking out one source, doesn't refute the other sources. You aren't taking into account that it was screened in significant international museums.

My major argument at the moment, per notability requirements the film was screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. Noting it's first screening in 2000 and latest screening in 2008. There's "there." F Lee001 (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' and send article about this strange genre film to cleanup to address format and style. Multiple in-depth coverages meet WP:GNG and screening at festival more than five years after initial release underscores the notability. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 22:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notabile and significant. Worth including. Article needs clean up. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2009 (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.