Talk:List of musical equipment used by Kurt Cobain

Errata?
The "Acoustic" section states that a "12-string Stella Harmony" guitar was used on the tracks, "Something In The Way" and "Polly". However, there is no 12-string guitar on either of those tracks as far as I can tell. Can anyone else confirm this? -- Hux 17:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, he used it, according to Nirvana guitar technician Earnie Bailey --200.118.133.58 01:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The guitar only had 5 strings on it according to various sources. This page could use a lot of work and a lot of citations to www.kurtsequipment.com

Deletion Nom
This article should undergo AfD again. The "votes" did not apply to the result - the article cannot be merged with Cobain's because the length of Cobain's article would violate length guidelines. Redirecting essentially resulted in a deletion, which was not the consensus of the AfD. -- ChrisB 20:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you can merge relevant information (which, in this case, would be very little) and then redirect it. That is, in general, my interpretation of a merge vote. Content voted to be deleted on AfD must be removed, but content need not be voted to be deleted on AfD in order to be removed. - Che Nuevara  21:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Read the guidelines. AfD is not a verdict - it's an attempt at consensus.  (Remember: voting is evil.)  The consensus of the AfD was categorically not "delete", so taking the AfD to mean that you can simply wipe this article off of the planet doesn't work.  Your interpretation is faulty: any content not explicitly named for deletion can remain for any reason.  Until the article is physically deleted (which this article WAS NOT), there's nothing to prevent any editor from returning it.
 * The consensus was "merge". However, this article cannot be merged.  And your feelings about the content does not trump the feelings of other editors - if someone else feels this content is notable, it should not be simply wiped in favor of a redirect, especially since the consensus was not "delete".
 * By the letter of the guidelines - were this content merged into Cobain's, it could then immediately be re-separated using the guidelines that suggest that long articles be split into smaller articles along suitable subject lines. (Which, mind you, were precisely the same guidelines that created this article in the first place.)  So, by the guidelines, this article has been successfully merged and split.  The AfD has been applied and we're back at square one.
 * If you want to wipe this article off of the planet, your only recourse at this stage is to renominate the article for deletion, explain that Cobain's article is too long for the content to be merged, and suggest that the answers be limited to "keep" or "delete".
 * Keep in mind: I'm not fighting for this article to be kept. I don't really care one way or another.  I'm fighting against your misinterpretation of the AfD and misapplication of the guidelines. -- ChrisB 05:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Some of this should be in the Kurt Cobain article in some form, since there's no mention of his musical style or equipment. Not the whole list, mind you, but listing his preferred brands of guitar (Mustang, Jaguar) and effects that contributed greatly to his sound would be appropriate. WesleyDodds 02:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not attempting to "wipe this article off the face of the planet", and I think your categorization of my actions as such markedly implies a lack of good faith. And deletions and merges on an AfD are, in fact, binding -- that's why we have a CSD for "recreated deleted content". I never said it was a verdict, and I object to your assumption that I view the AfD process that way. I said the result of the AfD was merge, and if you object to that wording, then you ought to petition to have the entire AfD process, including the template which says "the result was ..." changed. That is, in fact, how it works. It's very clearly appropriate to remove content that was not clearly closed as "keep" in an AfD. And a merge result does not mean that you have to keep all of the material -- it means you keep the relevant material. I do indeed agree that some of this information should be in his article, but the consensus of the community was that this article is not useful. That is entirely within the bounds of correct interpretation of the AfD process. In the future, I would appreciate if you didn't attribute motives and beliefs to me that I neither hold nor have expressed. - Che Nuevara  03:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to add that this page is copyvio, which is an excellent reason to blank this page and add the relevant information to the Cobain article. - Che Nuevara  03:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this page really necessary?
I don't think that Wikipedia needs an article about Kurt Cobain's guitars. You could at least merge this with the Kurt Cobain article.

copyvio
I absolutely can prove copyvio ... it would have been prudent to ask / look before reverting. A cursory examination of the article and its source finds the following sentences word-for-word or extremely closely copied:

Kurt played guitar left-handed, mostly using left-handed guitars, but sometimes used a right-handed guitar strung for a lefty and played upside down.

Although Kurt is known for his Fenders, he would use other brands from time to time.

[It] was seen starting in mid-to-late 1993 [...] although Kurt rarely played it.

''Courtney [Love] gave [Kurt's] Jag-Stang to R.E.M.'s Peter Buck. [...] He played it in the "What's the Frequency, Kenneth?" music video and REM bassist Mike Mills plays it live on "Let Me In".''

''Prior to the In Utero tour, Kurt's main acoustic was an Epiphone Texan purchased after completing "In Utero" as a replacement for the Stella. [...] Despite this, he wouldn't use it on "Unplugged".''

That's just in the first section and with less than five minutes of looking, all on the "guitars" subpage of the source. I'm sure I could find more if I tried, never mind the other sections. Look for yourself. This article is laid out exactly like its only source, so there's no reason to believe the rest is any different.

This is easily within the realm of blatant copyright violation.

And, for the record, a thorough paraphrase (ie, changing more than a word or two) isn't copyvio if it's cited.

Take a look for yourself. It's quite clearly copyvio.

- Che Nuevara  03:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Then remove the copyvio content. Copyvio doesn't give you license to remove an entire article.


 * If you can't find it yourself, here's the guideline, from WP:COPYVIO:


 * If some of the content of a page really is an infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the talk page, along with the original source. If the author's permission is obtained later, the text can be restored.


 * I don't see anywhere in there that you can wipe an article simply because some of the content might be a copyvio.


 * You've abused SEVERAL different guidelines in order to get this article deleted. If it deserves to be deleted, it should be done so ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES.  Stop trying to find loopholes - follow the rules and DO IT THE RIGHT WAY.  -- ChrisB 04:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to edit war with you. I want this article to be merged, because that was the result of the AfD. I am not trying to get it deleted. The closing admin said, and I quote, "redirect the Kurt Cobain: that way, anyone wanting to merge information back can do so".


 * I was planning on actually doing a slight merge, once I had time to find the relevant information. I also clearly stated that I had not checked every sentence in the article and thus wasn't sure what amount of the article was copyvio, but I suspected it was most if not all. I had every intention of going back and, in accordance with the AfD, merging the relevant information into the Cobain article, but I'm very busy at the moment and haven't had time to comb the entire site, as well as look for other sources.


 * I want to be very clear about this: reverting copyvio material back into an article is not only clearly against WP policy, but it is also against the law! As it seems to me that most, if not all, of this article is copyvio, the responsible thing to do is to blank it. I will, as per the AfD, slight merge the information into the Cobain article when I have time; unfortunately, I'm very busy, so it may not be immediate. If you would like to do it in the meantime, I would welcome that. But you cannot illegally repost copyrighted material!


 * I must also ask you to change your tone. Caps-yelling is inappropriate. I'm trying to discuss this in a reasonable way; even though I disagree with you, I am remaining civil. I am continuing to assume good faith in your motives, even though I disagree with them. You are caps-yelling, implying incompetence by indirectly asking if I know how to find a WP policy, and attributing motives to me which I have clearly disavowed.


 * I am not trying to eradicate this article; I am trying to implement the decision reached in the AfD. Like I said, I am not going to edit war over this: after this I will pursue other channels. - Che Nuevara  07:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't even try to take the high road here. You can read the piece of WP:COPYVIO that I quoted above, and see that you didn't follow it.  You refuse to even consider that your stance may be wrong, and every time you've been challenged, your first move is to renact the action that started this in the first place.  You should not have reverted this again before dialoguing - you should have acknowledged the objection and made moves to deal with it before wiping the article again.


 * How busy you are has no bearing on how or when this article gets merged. If you don't have time to do it, or to actually follow WP:COPYVIO the correct way, you shouldn't take the action.  You should either wait until you have time or until someone else takes the time.


 * Your actions here have been fully irresponsible. You wanted this article gone, and when the AfD didn't entirely support it, you tried to find another way.  If you really wanted this resolved in an appropriate manner, you would have left the article alone until Consensus could actually be determined.


 * "I am not going to edit war over this". You already did.  Rule #1 of Dispute Resolution: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute.  That is precisely what you did.


 * If you want to "pursue other channels", have at it. I wouldn't object in the slightest. -- ChrisB 03:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment
Article was dual-nominated for deletion along with List of musical equipment used by Jonny Greenwood; discussion can be seen here. Result, according to the closing admin (User:Mangojuice), was:
 * The result was slight merge the Jonny Greenwood, redirect the Kurt Cobain: that way, anyone wanting to merge information back can do so.

He then did so. Article was reverted back and forth several times. It was then discovered that at least portions of this article were blatant copyvio from its source, [] (see discussion above). Article was blanked, then reverted again in full, then blanked to the redirect.

- 04:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments
Whether its merged or not, the first advisable step would be to rewrite the prose to remove the text that violates copyright. I feel that's more constructive than outright blanking the information. WesleyDodds 14:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I blanked the page in accordance with WP:COPYVIO, which states: "If all of the content of a page is a suspected copyright infringement, then the page should be listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems and the content of the page replaced by the standard notice which you can find there." I chose not to use the copyvio tag and simply to redirect it because there was already a recent AfD decision to redirect, and a further deletion process would have created nothing new. If anything this was a conservative move, as a copyvio tag would possibly have resulted in wholesale deletion. - Che Nuevara  17:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the vote for deletion outcome of Merge infers that the material would be kept, albeit in a different form. The best thing to do still in my opinion is to rewrite instead of blanking.  We want to keep the informaiton after all. WesleyDodds 18:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that some material should be kept, and I stated explicitly that merging should take place and that I would do it when I had time to go back to the source and start from scratch, as was clearly mandated by the amount of copyvio. It has always been my intention to uphold the decision of the AfD; however, it is a matter of law that copyrighted material be removed on sight, and I consider international law a more pressing and immediate need than Wikipedia consensus. - Che Nuevara  18:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * People often endorse a merge without really thinking about it, so I wouldn't read too much into those comments. It certainly doesn't imply that all the material should be kept (some people even said explicitly that only a little should be incorporated), and it doesn't even imply that some should be kept necessarily -- IMO it puts that off for editors to decide.  BTW if we can't agree that this article should stay redirected, I think we ought to take a debate on that issue to WP:DRV, since it would be reversing an AfD decision.  Mango juice talk 18:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I did suggest a deletion review, but that suggestion was rejected (diff). - Che 18:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My involvement is pretty much limited to my closing of the AfD. In this case, I didn't perform an extensive merge because (1) it's not really my job, but more importantly, (2) there's a lot of stuff in the Kurt Cobain article already and there was a lot of stuff here, so a blind merge would have been a bad idea.  I think the community consensus is pretty clear that this should not be a separate article, though: there were no !votes at all for keeping.  THIS article should remain a redirect, and Kurt Cobain can be edited however anyone wants, but obviously, it should remain free of copyright violations. Mango juice talk 15:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)