Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Docker's Guild

Add links
From 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 was no consensus. I'm going to close this by IAR as a technical non-consensus, and I'm going to restart it as an AfD2. I have no personal opinion on this subject area, but I do have an opinion about the manner of discussion here. Too many of the arguments on both sides are far too personal, and a decisions about whether this is a suitable article for an encyclopedia would better be conducted in a more objective manner.

I remind those who wish to participate that the views of people who appear only for this discussion tend to be discounted unless they are based upon an understanding of WP policy. And it is WP policy that the intrinsic artistic merit of the work is not the principal factor determining whether there should be an article. DGG ( talk ) 06:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Docker's Guild

[edit]
Docker's Guild (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a musical project that's sourced almost entirely to official websites. There does not seem to be enough third-party coverage to warrant an article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spotify plays have nothing to do with it (along with all the vandalizing you've been doing under different IPs, 161.113.20.135. You seem to have an ax to grind about this project or his creator and collaborators, but this is not the place to vent your ire, and certainly does not concern Wikipedia, me or my effort to improve the article. Write to the guys involved if you've got issues). Anyway, the point is independent sources and I agree there are too many referring to DG's site or label (although technically the label is a third party). There are loads of independent sources out there however, including specialized rock, prog and metal encyclopedias (Netal Music Archives for one). A little research should shift the sources to more neutral territory. I'll look into it time permitting.

That said, too many official websites is no reason to delete an article, it just needs to be improved.87.13.60.147 (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no skin in this battle, but I do find it ironic that the page's main supporter has only ever edited this page. Its obviously the artist himself, especially in light of the Italian IP address. A tad sad to be honest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.81.212 (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey now, Docker's Guild does appear to be popular enough to merit a Wikipedia page. However, the page as written right now is a textbook case of the artist using Wiki as a means of advertisement. If somebody is willing to clean it up, they should. But it definitely should not continue to exist as currently composed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.34.123.6 (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing to suggest this is anything other than self promotion for a non-notable "band" created by one person that appears to the "artist" himself. This page utterly fails to meet wiki notability guidelines, and reads like an advertisement. Furthermore, while free speech is important, the "artist's" blackface garb in the attached picture seems to unnecessarily provocative and racist. Jimmysquirrelpants (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---Delete. Non-notable and self-promoting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.86.52 (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  15:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I contributed quite a bit to the article a few years back and I am appalled at the pettiness of most reasons for deletion. Most of them, IMO, are irrelevant to deletion, including Spotify plays, accusations of racism, and certainly non-notability (none of which have been substantiated or referenced). The only real issue here is the references which are, I agree, leaning a bit too much on the project's direct sources. That is good reason enough to improve the article and find more neutral sources, but it certainly does not warrant deletion. I'd love to work on it, but unfortunately I have no time these days. Janthana (talk) 16:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. I find it quite disturbing that you would label "accusations of racism" irrelevant. The page is dominated by a picture of a man performing in blackface. This is, quite frankly, an expression of prejudice and hate that has no place on Wikipedia. Furthermore, I see no evidence of any coverage of this act in any reliable, third-party sources. This is a hate-filled advertisement masquerading as an article. Jimmysquirrelpants (talk) 14:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Racism: if you have proof, substantiate it, otherwise it's just biased gossip. We're trying to build an encyclopedia here, not a tabloid. I've done a fair amount of reading and research and NOTHING confirms your point of view. There is not a single shred of evidence that DG has any racism in it. They are telling a sci-fi story and this is probably one of the characters. in your line of thinking, we should also remove uruk-hais, orcs, drows, dark elves, Darth Vader, Black Smurfs and any other "offensive" character out there. How about Tintin's first comic? The article on nazism or the KKK perhaps?
2. You see no evidence because you haven't done any research. A quick browsing of the web shows, randomly chosen, these neutral sources and I can see many more: Prog Archives (http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=7581), Metal Music Archives (http://www.metalmusicarchives.com/artist/dockers-guild/?ac=docker%27s%20guild). you have to be inducted into these by a panel of experts, so it's not promotional material.
3. I find it ironic that many in the small group of "deleters" have not contributed a single word on Wikipedia. Going deeper into the history of the article, which I hadn't seen in years, I was pretty surprised to see the amount of vandalism in the last month. pointing out exactly the same accusations in a trolling format. Now new IDs appear out of nowhere repeating the same stuff. I think it is time the admins cleaned up this mess and that we all started looking at this from an ACADEMIC perspective instead of weak petty reasons for removing an article. Something is going on here that I don't quite understand, but it's pretty obvious.
Ironic that you talk about people who haven't contributed a single word on Wikipedia, yet you don't sign your edits yourself. Is that because when we look at your history, we will see that the only article you have ever edited is the DG article? Talk about hypocrisy. And why would that be? If you are the artist, just say so. 161.113.20.135 (talk) 16:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I agree with all the points of the unsigned comments above. I have no idea if this is the artist or not, and quite frankly I don't care one bit. I see many unsigned IPs that have worked on the article through the years, and from several countries, so obviously there are many contributing to this article, and no one has ever complained about this. Additional, those points are quite reasonable and much more balanced than the petty angry rebukes that seem to dominate this thread. Let's stick to the real problems: sources, biased content, the vandalizing that I have read as well and that nobody seems to be interested in. If you're so upset about the article why don't you improve it instead of being negative? Janthana (talk) 16:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How cute. "Janthana" weighs in...yet another IP addy/ID who has ONLY ever edited the DG page. How many aliases do you have, Doug? 161.113.20.135 (talk) 17:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a petty squabble between the artist and his stalkers, not sure which one of you is worse. All that said, my vote is DELETE. Nothing suggests notability, and appears to have definitely been authored as a self-promotional piece.199.233.236.82 (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Not considering any of the apparent comments listed above, none of this suggests minimal notability for the subject's own article, at best, Redirect to Douglas R. Docker's article. SwisterTwister talk 07:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to me it certainly "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." These sources have not been used properly but they exist. 213.144.92.194 (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to Douglas Docker's individual page. The project in question does not possess requisite notability, while Docker himself appears to do so.66.87.80.179 ([[User talk:66.87.80.17 9|talk]]) 12:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable act. User-created metal archives are just Wikis themselves, certainly not reliable sources.66.87.80.135 (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, per your point "1. Racism: if you have proof, substantiate it" I believe the picture speaks for itself. Blackface is inherently racist; regardless of your intentions there is no way to separate blackface from its history of prejudice and hate. There is a world of difference between characters with dark skin and a white man painting his face black in a manner reminiscent of 19th-century minstrelsy. Wikipedia is not an outlet for your hate speech nor an arena for you to advertise the same. Jimmysquirrelpants (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. Clear vanity project by artist with no legitimate third-party sources. Appears to lack any notability. RE: the racism/blackface issue; I doubt the artist is intending to be racist, but it shows insanely poor judgment. 71.185.45.31 (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 00:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a notable project with international guests like many others (Avantasia, Ayreon, and more) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.14.144.52 (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC) Delete. Why in the world was this re-listed? Every keep vote is from an IP whose only Wiki activity is Docker's Guild related activity. All Italian IPs, and all likely the artist himself. Nothing suggests any notability of any kind. 213.191.220.180 (talk) 04:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or at best redirect to Douglas Docker page. Project itself is not notable enough for individual page. 51.255.21.236 (talk) 05:17, 6 March 2016 (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/Docker%27s_Guild&oldid=1076168347"