User talk:Tonytt

File source problem with File:HaskinsLabs.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:HaskinsLabs.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Rubin2005.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Rubin2005.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomination of The institution for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The institution is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/The institution until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The institution
Hello @Tonytt, I didn't realize you had only just created this article, so my apologies if it feels like your work is being immediately marked for deletion. However, Wikipedia requires articles to be covered by independent, reliable sources. In this case, The institution is almost entirely self-sourced and the band's own site will not help to demonstrate that it's notable enough for Wikipedia. Our standard for bands is found at WP:BAND. What would help would be coverage by local newspapers, music critics, etc. Without that though, Wikipedia cannot host information on every minor band and singer. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Alyo, Thanks for your excellent comments. I agree that Wikipedia cannot, nor should not, host information on every minor band. I believe that this particular band is notable for unique reasons that the coverage of many of the bands in the early garage band scene currently appearing on Wikipedia does not completely capture. Articles in the media and on Wikipedia tend to skew, understandably, to more visible bands often best known for their recordings (sometimes only a single recording), resulting in reviews and media coverage. That is not all that was going on during that era. This band is not known mainly for its recordings, but for its appearances on television shows like Clay Cole's and Zacherly's in the 1960s that are fading from memory and should not. Second is that some key members have gone on to distinguished careers and this entry illustrates a part of their origins. It should not all be about media coverage (which is great!), but also history. These individuals include Joey Kramer (a Wikipedia entry), who shortly after this joined Aerosmith as their long-term drummer; Ricky Rackin, who moved on to Richard and the Young Lions (a Wikipedia entry), and Love (a Wikipedia entry). Philip Rubin, a founder and a Wikipedia entry, went on to work at the White House, rare for musicians of this or any other era. J. Howard Duff remains active and continues to be well-known on the music scene and in Christian rock.
 * I hope that Wikipedia can make an exception from its default policy for this entry. I believe that it adds detail and context to a difficult to document early period in the garage rock scene. Please note that, as far as I know, The Institution no longer exists (there are other bands with similar names), and the website theinstitution.rocks is a tribute site, not an official website. Thanks for your patience. I put this page together based on a combination of web-based information from former members, Rubin and Duff, other Wikipedia entries, and external websites such as 60sgaragebands.com, which is no longer active. Creating this entry has been a labor of love and I think that it enhances Wikipedia's coverage of the early garage rock scene, showing, in part, how unique aspects of it came about and what, sometimes, that can lead to. Thanks! Tonytt (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm, so may help, but are you aware of any sources (books, historical pieces, newspapers) that would confirm this?  Alyo  (chat·edits) 17:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Alyo, thanks for getting back to me. This is a tough and interesting issue. Here are a couple of related books.
 * Clay Cole. "Sh-Boom! The Explosion of Rock 'n' Roll (1953-1968)". Morgan James Publishing: 2009. This book should be useful to provide verifiability for the existence of the Discotek television show on WPIX-TV out of New York City on which The Institution appeared.
 * Richard Scrivani. "Good Night, Whatever You Are! My Journey with Zacherley the Cool Ghoul!" BearManor Media: 2018. Again, this book should be useful for providing verifiability for the existence of Zacherley's Disk-O-Teen TV show, broadcast on WNJU-TV in Newark, on which the band appeared.
 * Another possible reference to Zacherley and teen bands is: Felix Vasquez, Jr. "Disc-O-Teen" Gave Horror Host John Zacherle His Own "American Bandstand". bloody-disgusting.com, Dec 17, 2020. See:
 * https://bloody-disgusting.com/tv/3645366/disc-o-teen-gave-horror-host-john-zacherle-american-bandstand-tv-terrors/
 * A partial quote about bands: "It ... allowed him to book local rock bands in desperate need of publicity, while he also booked some huge bands with big hits on the charts like The Doors, Loving Spoonful, and The Dave Clark Five, respectively."
 * If you think it is appropriate, I can add links to these references on The institution page.
 * It can be hard to find a lot of detail on such early TV shows. As pointed out on the Wikipedia page Lost television broadcast, many tapes and other materials from the late 1970s and earlier have been discarded or destroyed. Here is a portion of what is said in the United States section of that entry:
 * "In the United States, the major broadcast networks engaged in the practice of wiping recordings until the late 1970s. Many episodes were erased, especially daytime and late-night programming such as daytime soap operas and game shows. The daytime shows, almost all of them having been taped, were erased because they were not perceived as having continuing commercial value. In the early 1970s, the passage of Financial Interest and Syndication Rules barred the networks from syndicating their own archived programming; intended to encourage more local and independent content, it had the unintended consequence of prompting the networks to discard tapes that syndication companies had no interest in distributing (especially those in black and white)."
 * Thus, those writing more recently no longer have the original sources, and end up covering the high visibility groups that grabbed the media's attention. Unfortunate, and sometimes misrepresentative of the scene at the actual time.
 * While I have you here, I have a question that you might be able to answer. When I created the entry, I intended it to be "The Institution", but it ended up as "The institution", with a lower case "i". Should this page eventually get approved (and I hope that it does), is there any way to fix this? Thanks! Tonytt (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So there is a way to fix the title--page moves are fairly simple on Wikipedia, but to be honest with you I don't think the page will be kept. As you note, there's just such a mismatch between the coverage of a band like this and Wikipedia's requirement that all content be verifiable. Generally, wikipedia requires 2-3 independent (i.e., the fansite wouldn't count towards this) sources that discuss each article topic in some detail. Right now, The institution doesn't have any sources that would meet that mark, and unfortunately it doesn't sound like those books you mention would either--coverage of the tv shows isn't the same as coverage of the band itself. Copy the content just so you have it, but based on my experience I don't see this article being kept. I also tried to look through some NJ newspaper archives to see if I could find any mention of the band, and came up empty. Alyo  (chat·edits) 13:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I also did a media search and the only thing that I came up with were a couple of local newspaper mentions that were very short -- both displayed on the fansite. This is not a surprise, given the role this band played as originally mostly an opening act for much better known groups. It was these latter groups that usually get the attention and had the PR support that was needed, resulting in media coverage. I was able, as an example, to find a few related YouTube videos, but the groups shown, like The Boxtops, or mentioned, like The Doors or The Lovin' Spoonful, were much better known at the time. It seems unlikely that The Institution would appear in such media, so it seems like a pretty futile search. But the importance and notability of this particular band was different im kind. It was mostly about: (1) their role as an opening act for some very well known (at the time) groups (hard to verify except on a fansite or autobiographical remembrance); (2) their TV appearances (hard to verify without tapes of the shows or related material or media coverage) on shows that either had impact on the future rock scene (Clay Cole) or became a cult favorite (Zacherley); and (3) the significant careers that emerged from such a seemingly insignicant band (not true for many garage bands of that early era). These things are hard to verify, given the passing of years and circumstances related to the nature of the band. But the group did have impacts on key people, and these impacts have been lasting, shaping the notable careers of some of these individuals whose lives are verifiable and would not have been the same without this unique history.
 * It is truly a shame that this page most probably will not be kept. I believe it serves a useful purpose of providing context and history for a portion of the early garage rock scene that is currently not well represented. It also shows how some who went on to greater prominence got their starts. I agree that verifiabity is important, but so is flexibility, and sometimes it helps if rules can be bent. Given the paucity of availability of original source material, compounded by the fact that early groups like this often did not receive significant media coverage, the network of connections created by the existence of this group appears to establish a different sort of verifiablity that, I agree, does not appear to match the current rules of Wikipedia. This is a shame and I hope one day those rules will be modified in certain circumstances if the overall narrative seems reasonable, significant, and well-connected and contextualized, as this appears to be.
 * Thank you for your consideration and also for your time and energy researching this item. Greatly appreciated. Tonytt (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Tonytt, I greatly appreciate your perspective and willingness to try to work within WP's rules. If I can say anything else, I hope this experience doesn't color your view of this site too harshly! Wikipedia could really use your knowledge and interest, and I hope you find another topic you are willing and able to contribute to. One of my favorite ways to edit on here is to read a book on a topic I'm interested in, and then expand the related articles and add citations as I go through the book. I'm sure there are plenty of those that you could find if you wanted. Otherwise, I second what User:Doomsdayer520 said here, and I wish you the best. Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 15:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Alyo, I replied to Doomsdayer520's comments. Here is what I said:
 * "Thanks for the thoughtful comments. Take a look at the Steel Mill entry. For much of their early existence there is very little solid sourcing, instead mostly there are fan sites such as brucebase, dead entries, tribute sites like Garry's Corner, mentions from an autobiography (an excellent one) by Bruce Springsteen who was a member of Steel Mill, making the reference self-sourced. To me, that is not crucial. What is most important about Steel Mill is the fact the several of its members went on to considerable success, including Bruce, Steve Van Zandt, Danny Federici, and that they opened for several well-known groups (which is apparently poorly sourced in the Steel Mill wikipedia entry), not that they were a significant or well-known band at the time, though there was a nice review of one performance in a local paper, as there were short, complimentary words in a letter in a local paper for The Institution. (Note that Steel Mill also played at a Thanksgiving event in 1970 with The Institution, mentioned on their tribute site in a flyer, and Steel Mill's presence on a fan chronology site.)
 * I strongly believe that there should be a Wikipedia entry for Steel Mill, to show how Bruce and the others got started, no matter how obscure these early groups were. They are an important part of rock history, as is the usually obscure role they played as an opening act. I also believe that The Institution played a similar, but less prominent role, giving a start to people like Joey Kramer, Rickie Rackin, J. Howard Duff, and Philip Rubin. I am fond of outsiders and underdogs, but feel that The Institution was more than this, playing a significant role in the rough and tumble, and usually obscure, early days of garage bands in New Jersey, opening for well known groups, appearing on important television shows like Clay Cole's and Zacherly's, and nurturing key individuals, a couple of whom went on to considerably more prominence than most who were part of this scene. At the same time, I understand that Wikipedia has its rules and standards. I believe that in this instance, the difficulty of documentation from this era (for Steel Mill, The Institution, and many others bands), and the web of connections and verifiability of key individuals who were shaped by playing in this band, should be both important and mitigating factors when considering the deletion of this entry.
 * Thanks again for your patience in putting up with listening to my point of view on this. I think that is an important entry, if not a standard one, and hope that it will not be deleted from Wikipedia. It was an important part of this early history (at least in New Jersey and clubs in NYC) and will, unfortunately, disappear from history without such an entry on Wikipedia. I first ran across modern interest in the band around 2015 on a website called 60srockband.com. That site is now gone. Many of the links and sites on the Steel Mill site are gone. This history is disappearing. Wikipedia can, and should, help save it." Tonytt (talk) 03:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Tonytt, I appreciate your interest, dedication, and passion.  However, I had to remove the mention of The Institution in the Garage rock article.  The mention of this group was in the Peak of success section, which is only there to discusses acts that had national hits.  Nor could they be included in the Regions section, because that section is for groups who, though not achieving national hits, nonetheless cut officially-released material that is highly regarded in the genre and in many cases had local and regional hits.  The Institution may have made recordings, but to my knowledge they have not been officially released.  The article about the group is vague about what actual material the band recorded.  Have any of these tracks been officially released?  If not, then I hope that some of those recordings could come to light and find official releases.  Let's hope.  But, right now there is not enough to go by.  Merely opening for well-known acts and having members who later went on to well-known bands is not enough.  To be included in the Garage rock article, a band has to have released records that are highly recognized or regarded in the genre (discussed in reliable sources). Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)