Talk:Italian Bellotti Cymbals

AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/January 2007/Pajaro4
This article is the subject of a request for assistance. I am currently looking into the issue. Please place comments here on reasons why this article should or should not be deleted. I am also open to discussion either on my talk page or by email. Regards. SilkTork 20:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Check the logs of Bellotti Cymbals. I personally nominated that page for deletion numerous times- I was concerned primarily about the notability of the subject, but also the lack of sources and the original research and POV in the article. I discussed the matter in depth with the editor responsible for creating the page. They have now assured me that they are working on this article, and another, to bring them up to standards acceptable by Wikipedia policies. J Milburn 20:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

To update. I have taken a look on Wiki and found other articles on cymbal manufacturers. This particular article doesn't, as it currently stands, appear to be significantly different to the others. I have therefore added it to the cymbal manufacturers category. It might be appropriate to bring it to the attention of other editors working in the field of cymbals, and I will make more steps in that direction. At the moment I am still a little uncertain why it was speedy deleted in the first place. There is the word "obscure" in the article which might lead someone to make an assumption of non-notable. However, there are a number of obscure and esoteric articles on Wiki, and Wiki is all the better for it. Obscure doesn't necessarily mean non-notable - it means there is little information on the subject. The subject, however, could be of great importance. It is worth noting that the article states the company closed in 1970 - before the internet was formed. In my experience there are many subjects and companies that do not respond well to a google search due to the fact that they are in third world countries or are based in the past or are of a topic that is not of interest to young tech-minded westerners. I am still not suggesting that this article should stand, but that there is more to consider than a speedy delete would provide. SilkTork 08:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand these points. However, please read the speedy deletion criteria A7, which is number 7 on this list. Reasoning for notability was certainly not given, and two seperate admins agreed with me on that point, as can be seen in the deletion log for that article title. This was the reason I nominated the article for speedy deletion, and it seems very unlikely that myself and two different admins would all favour deletion of an article if it was actually a legitimate article. I have not reveiwed the articles in question recently, but past issues were as follows- notability, sources, original research and NPOV. Please note that I have linked to the policies regarding these matters each time. Is there still any confusion as to why I nominated these articles for deletion, why I wasn't happy with the articles whenever they were created, and why the admins decided that these articles should be deleted? I think I have been very patient and reasonable about it, despite the borderline harrassment that I have recieved from Pajaro4 in his comments here. Can it also be noted that the fact that there are other, similar articles is irrelevent; please see this explanation for why. J Milburn 18:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

While it is helpful to have the background of your contact with Pajaro4, I am more interested at this point in a debate on the merits of the article, and the reasons for deletion. You have pointed me to site guidance, but I would honestly rather have had your reasons explained in your own words. Let me quote a couple of sentences from Criteria for speedy deletion:


 * Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether an article could be improved or reduced to a stub; speedy deletion is for cases where an article does not contain useful content. ....


 * These criteria are worded narrowly, and generally so phrased that, in most cases, reasonable editors will agree what does or does not fall under a given criterion. When there is reasonable doubt whether a page does, discussion is recommended, using one of the other methods under deletion policy.

It may be that the current article is a much improved version of what was originally deleted, but as it stands it doesn't appear to be an immediate and obvious speedy delete. It looks like a borderline case that could be debated. Because an editor hasn't heard of a company doesn't mean the company should be deleted - yet that appears to be dangerously close to the rational here.

To clear that accusation - it would be very useful if the thought process - plus any research undertaken at the time - were presented here. I wouldn't want any person reading this to think that an editor simply nominated this article for speedy delete without adequate research. Ebay is useful for getting a feel for interest. Check here: and to see there is interest in these cymbals. Again - I am not saying this article should stay, just that there seems reason to pause. Nor am I interested in rooting through the past - but, yes, I will question behaviour if it is brought up and displayed here. What I am interested in is reasons for deletion as a starting point for a dignified discussion. SilkTork 19:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The job that I carry out most frequently on Wikipedia is new page patrol. I nominate articles for deletion if they do not comply to the policies of Wikipedia. The article in question did not define the notability of the subject, which alone makes it eligable for deletion. However, this was not an obvious hoax, and so I googled "Bellotti Cymbals", presuming this to be name of the company. When this search yeilded not a single result, I nominated it for deletion. I realise that this test is by no means foolproof, but, with all due respect, I have seen it used numerous times, where as I have never seen your eBay test being used. Also, the fact that there are a number of items on eBay by no means means that this subject is notable. The reason I linked to those particular policies is because, while I realise that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, the policies should usually be stuck to. As I see it, this article was a classic case of someone creating an article about a subject (in entirely good faith, I don't think anyone would deny that) that simply was not notable enough to have a subject about. This really isn't the place to debate the policies of Wikipedia, and I struggle to understand what misunderstanding there is on the subject. While these particular individuals may well be notable, I am yet to see any evidence on the matter. If these people do deserve an article, then the whole thing could be dealt with if the original editor would just provide reasoning for this. What I find rather odd about what you said, SilkTork, is that firstly, you say you want to hear what I have to say in my own words, yet then, you say that I am possibly deleting this page because I had not heard of it. These points don't run well next to one another, for me. Call me a machine if you like, but I nominate for deletion as the Wikipedia policy states that I should. Never would I nominate an article for deletion 'because I hadn't heard of the subject'. I do not feel that explaining why I deleted the page in my own words would be appropriate- my words are not the Wikipedia policy, and, rightfully, inventing my own reason to delete a page would mean that I was challenged, and my words picked at in great detail. I have nominated hundreds of pages for speedy deletion, and admins have said that the pages should not be deleted maybe five or six times. I think I will contact the admins who were involved in this matter. I simply nominated the article twice, I was not the one who made the final descision and actually pressed the delete button. I would suspect that the admins would respond in the same way I have- explain why these articles were a breach of policy. J Milburn 20:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. In summary you nominated the article for speedy deletion because you were following policy. You identified this article as being non-notable according to Wikipedia policy. You did a Google search for "Bellotti Cymbals" which returned no information on the subject. Finding no information on the subject, coupled with the article's own admission that the subject matter was "obscure", gave you enough justification to propose it for speedy deletion. SilkTork 21:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am one of the administrators involved in deleting the article. I am absolutely certain that your nomination of the article was justified as was its deletion. The article simply does not assert the notability of the subject. In fact, one sentence reads: "Because so few of these vintage cymbals exist on the market today [...] Bellotti remains one of the more obscure names in cymbal manufacturers." I am sorry but this article simply does not meet the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia. The speedy deletion criterion A7 directly addresses the subject: if notability is not asserted by the authors of the article, then the article can be deleted. Unless the importance of the subject can be proven through references to non-trivial, independent, and credible sources, the article should be removed. TSO1D 21:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response TSO1D. You read J Milburn's nomination for speedy deletion and agreed with the main points that there was insufficient material existing on the topic for it to be considered notable. So the article was deleted. The article had been independently examined by two editors and both agreed the subject matter was lacking in sufficient verifiable information to be included on Wikipedia. SilkTork 21:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My question here is to do with the nature of the search for verifiable information. The Google test is not infallible, and is subject to debate. It is particularly unreliable when considering third world topics, or events or companies which had their peak before the internet was invented. Also, a closed search such as "Bellotti Cymbals" will give fewer returns than the more open Bellotti Cymbal. Other than the Google search, what other method was used to ascertain the verifiability of the topic? SilkTork 21:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally only read the article, and made use of the Google test. It is the authors' responsibility to provide proof of notability, and this author had done no such thing, as far as I could see. The fact that my google test not only did not find any sources, but did not find any mention at all led me to believe that there was practically no chance of there being any notability at all. However, I made the mistake of thinking that 'Bellotti Cymbals' was the name of the group producing these cymbals, as is usual on Wikipedia. Notability was never established in the articles, and this is the reason that I nominated them for deletion, and the reason that they were deleted. This company might well be notable, however, I saw no evidence of that in the article, and found no evidence for it via Google. J Milburn 22:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. Despite an exact search not having been done, I think we have now established that correct procedure was followed, and that there is a serious question of notability regarding this article. It is now up to the original editor to give reasons why the article should remain as it is. There are three options open here. 1) The article is listed on Articles for deletion; 2)The article is merged with other cymbal articles; 3)The article is allowed to stand and be developed. As it currently stands it appears that options 1 and 2 are the most likely. However, if Pajaro4 could enter this discussion and give some reasons why the article should stand that would assist the possibility of option 3 happening. SilkTork 23:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't see any notability problem. The brand is listed in several definitive works on cymbals, and these are now cited in the article. It's well enough respected that over the years several eBay sellers have claimed (possibly not accurately, but that's another story) that their offerings were from Bellotti. It would be really good to retain this content.


 * Merge and redirect would work I guess, but I can't see what we'd merge to... lesser-known cymbal brands seems an artificial subject, and we'd then need redirects from all the brand names anyway. Andrewa 09:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A proposed merge article
Thanks to Andrewa for giving his view on the notability of Italian Bellotti Cymbals. It is emerging that there is the possibility that this article can be saved in some form. I would suggest a merged article, sweeping together several of the very minor cymbal articles and stubs that are already on Wiki. I have set up an article called Cymbal manufacturers with the intention that such an article would give an overview of cymbal manufacturers past and present around the world. It would, obviously, mention the major manufacturers, giving brief summaries, and linking readers to the major articles. But it would also be the place where such minor manufacturers as Bellotti could be detailed. I have marked this article and several of the others with merge tags. Further conversation should take place on Talk:Cymbal manufacturers SilkTork 00:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)