Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Unitsky


 * 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   delete. Wizardman 22:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Ed Unitsky

 * – (View AfD (View log  •  AfD statistics)

WP:NN artist who fails WP:ARTIST. Both the DPRP award and the PROGaward are online, unscientific polls. The "Museum of Computer Art" is a web site where artists can self-publish their work. Toddst1 (talk) 12:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral, weak keep Please note that Toddst1 has removed most of the articles content. While a COI (the artist in question) made this article look rather terrible, it is notable, and easy to clean up. This artist has designed cover art for several notable progressive rock bands (DPRP is very much a reliable and "scientific" award, as it is considered the top honour for modern prog bands, who don't get the kind of coverage that mainstream bands get. To say DPRP is not good enough would be like dismissing all the underground death metal charts because they don't have a national chart). He is notable along the same lines as Storm Thorgerson, just without the multi-platinum band under his belt. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  17:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Indeed, when I intervened on an edit war on this article, I removed a lot of unsourced information and claims like "He is touted as the modern day Salvador Dali." and "Many seem to believe it is inspired from the Divine." along with a long list of unsourced credits. None of which belong in the article, some of which has been added back without citations. Toddst1 (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:DEADLINE, patience grasshopper. There was no edit war. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  19:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not appear to meet WP:ARTIST notability guidelines (online poll based awards are usually not notable). OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Notable, perhaps not, but valid, certainly. The Italian prog awards are definitely notable. If not, wikipedia has a bias against any genre that isn't commercially flaunted, and that bias must be changed. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  17:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How is an on-line poll this website a reliable enough source to pass one of the 5 criteria of WP:ARTIST? Toddst1 (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't an online poll, its just an online website. There are set judges for the Italian Prog Awards. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  00:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah. I see there is a "jury" (my italian is rusty). However that still leaves the matter of passing WP:Artist. I guess 4(c) "has won significant critical attention" would be the closest thing that would fit, but the key word there is significant. I'd be hard pressed to defend this web site as being "significant critical attention". Toddst1 (talk) 01:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I still think thats putting an unfair bias on areas of music that are still immensely popular and notable, yet don't receive commercial critical coverage. I leave my keep argument at the fact that he is the artist for a good number of albums with their own Wikipedia article. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  07:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but that's really a different discussion which should be played out on Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music) and/or Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). If you feel the criteria are wrong, you should work to change them. But in the short term, WP:Artist is the criteria we have to work with.  Toddst1 (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep after flushing out a few sources and cleaning up the article. Notable along the same lines as Storm Thorgerson: has done the artwork for several dozen albums that have their own article on wikipedia. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  17:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

from Andy Tillison [Po90], [the Tangent]

Hello ED.

I do not think your page should be deleted from Wikipedia. I am not a member of Wikipedia and I have never contributed anything to the page. The article about my band The Tangent has been done by someone else, I do not know who, I do not like the article because I think it is far too long for a band of our status and far too anecdotal. It is not encyclopedic enough and should be far more factual

I have read the arguments involved and believe that the member Floydian is correct in protesting that DPRP polls etc are not invalid, as these polls have been established for at least a decade and require a certain amount of input from the user rather than a tick box system. The fact that this is not a TV poll like the X-Factor does not invalidate the importance thereof. As an industry worker I know that nearly all progressive rock musicians take a very serious view of the DPRP poll (it frightens me to hell!!). As the winners of this poll are likely to quote from it in advertising features in commercial magazines this does indicate a certain industry respect for the poll

I think the proposer of deletion is taking an attitude of "I've never heard of him or this poll, so why should it be on here"

I suggest that you contact member Floydian if you can. You may copy this mail to him. Although progressive Rock music's fortunes are nowhere near as well reported by mainstream media as they once were, my personal view is that your contribution to the current scene is well respected among the vast majority of those who follow the genre.

I am sorry that someone has taken this attitude against you. other than this mail of support, there is very little I can do. i think that for Wikipedia to delete your article wouod be detrimental to Wikipedias astonishing grasp on the variety of contemporary culture.

Andy Tillison —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Unitsky (talk • contribs) 21:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If Mr. Tillison can provide ANY recognized magazines or advertisements where a band quotes a DPRP poll, it would provide some sourced solidarity to the validity of them, and may help in getting them acknowledged as a notability criteria. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  09:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete: I see Floydian's argument that it's unfair to dismiss obscure, under-the-radar polls on the ground that they're not nationally recognized. Well, yes, awards which lack reliable sources testifying to broad support for their significance and notability fail most Wikipedia criteria for notability and verifiability.  I just don't see that as a bad thing.  If Unitsky has genuine significance, there'll be reliable sources saying so.  When those appear, I'll change my mind regarding his notability.    RGTraynor  13:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There are notable sources, thats what the DPRP is. It's just not notable to you. In its industry (which is where it matters) it is a VERY reliable and respected source. Wikipedia just needs to wake up and smell the coffee with its criteria for notability almost exclusively limited to historical, and pop/rock/top 40 chart toppers. Asinine. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  17:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And it will remain non-notable to me, and to Wikipedia at large, without reliable sources testifying to its notability. You've been on Wikipedia far too long not to understand that that is how it works. Wikipedia has never been a publisher of first instance, and we need more than your assertion that this poll is recognized as an authority in its field.  That there's only one other article on the English Wikipedia mentioning it doesn't bode well.  As it happens, the Dutch Wikipedia neither mentions this poll in its progressive rock article  nor has an article on Unitsky himself. .  So far the coffee's smelling mighty weak.    RGTraynor  19:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see how the Dutch wikipedia not having an article means something. It's an English website as well. Also, it's not my assertion, but that of professionals in the industry. I will try to find interviews in commercially popular magazines that are apparently reliable because the editor read them, to satisfy the community. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  19:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Err, wouldn't a reasonable inference be that if this Dutch website was all that notable, the Dutch Wikipedia would go so far as to mention it in the article on the type of music for which it's purportedly an arbiter of notability, if not so far as to deem it worthy of a standalone article?  RGTraynor  20:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the dutch article says, but I imagine that like the English article it is centred around those 5 or 6 bands that really broke big in the 70's, and the 2 or 3 modern prog bands with coverage by the mainstream media. In other words it was written (for the most part) by someone who isn't aware. Again, as I said, I will try to find some coverage in a reliable source. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  20:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Doesn't seem notable, & refs too low quality. Johnbod (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I will respond comprehensively this weekend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.65.199 (talk) 06:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete refs suck, so nn. a note: the main person defending this article in this discussion just does not understand fundamental Wikipedia concepts. don't waste your time arguing. use the time to find references. if they don't exist then accept it is not an appropriate topic for wikipedia and walk away to spend your time improving other things. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * 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.