Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pipe gamelan


 * 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. Although few commenters, the discussion is extensive enough. The consensus appears to be delete - although, this does not prevent a future USEFUL and validly-sourced article from someday in the future being created (not today, not tomorrow, but when notability is established (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Pipe gamelan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Part of a spam cluster. Previous group deleted at Articles for deletion/Viscount Bells. This was previously nominated as part of a group at Articles for deletion/Stone marimba. That closed with a suggestion to relist individually No real claim to notability. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Mix of bad sources, original research, linkspamming and promotion. Refs used are not independent reliable sources and include multiple links to article creators business. This is not really an article about the instrument but a coatracks to talk about "Percussion legend Emil Richards". Named by him as part of his personal collection but there is no good evidence of any wider use. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - yes, the WP:COATRACK does resonate with the theme of the article. A proper article about this western gamelan instrument could be of interest, but I couldn't find any decent sources for it (only 550 to choose from, and nothing solid in that list). Of course we never saw any such instrument in Java or Bali. At best WP:TOOSOON but coatrack is about right. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article isn't encyclopedic in tone but the topic is encyclopedic. It could be stubified or perhaps merged to Emil Richards for the moment, but deletion is not the best way forward, and will just lead to more recreation. The solution is to develop good coverage of the topic(s). Disagree that it's purely part of a spam cluster, but there are definitely possible COI issues that nobody seems to have addressed, remembering WP:AGF (diffs please if there have been attempts I've missed). Happy to work with the contributor(s) to resolve the issues. Andrewa (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Alternatively redirect to Emil Richards but IMO even this is premature, see below. Andrewa (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would love to keep this but there just aren't (yet) any usable sources that I could find. If you know of any, list them here or add them to the article and I'll vote keep. If not, keep is simply the wrong vote. A redirect to Emil Richards is potentially misleading (we'd have to change it if an article on this topic becomes possible). Of course the content can be merged there, you can do that today. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Where have you looked for usable sources? Just to save the rest of us reinventing the wheel?


 * The issue is not that the article needs fixing, that is agreed. The issues are, do we want an article covering this instrument (not necessarily dedicated to it), and if so how best to proceed. The keep vote is correct if the answer to the first question is yes, as I believe the evidence (scarce though it may be so far) suggests.


 * Exactly how would a redirect to Emil Richards be misleading? Agree that we'd have to change it if we later decided to split the content back to this title, of course we would, so? How is that misleading? It makes the split far easier and more informative, by preserving the earlier edit history, again saving us reinventing the wheel. Andrewa (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Ri l ey    00:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. What reliable sources do you think justifies Wikipedia having this article? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree, but the fact that you can't find any doesn't seem to count for much, frankly. You haven't said where you've looked. At least one of the many percussion stubs you've AfD'd recently has turned out to be a very noteworthy instrument, closed as keep with a very strong consensus, see Articles for deletion/Boomwhacker.


 * Have you consulted any offline sources at all? Which? And could you link to the online searches on which I'm guessing you base these AfDs?


 * The charge that this is Part of a spam cluster was also part of both of the previous AfDs to which you refer, Articles for deletion/Viscount Bells and then Articles for deletion/Stone marimba.


 * It's unfortunate that nobody challenged this charge of spamming on the first occasion, which deleted six articles by strong consensus, and gave very little help to the newbie who just didn't know how to respond but tried hard, and has worked hard on these articles. There is no evidence that they are a deliberate spammer, they just didn't appreciate our standards of tone and verifiability. Now we will need to go to WP:DRV to recover their contributions.


 * The second, listed as Next bunch of a spam cluster and making similar baseless claims on the motives of the contributor, was closed Please relist individually; it might lead to a clear conclusion about at least some of them. That's what has brought us here.


 * I don't wish to disparage User:Duffbeerforme, who is obviously a well-motivated and hard-working contributor. But I do wish to suggest that this particular campaign of AfDs is premature. The contributor has a large and valuable dead-tree library, and simply did not realise that citing these paper sources would be more appreciated here than links to drum shop sites and the like. It's an understandable mistake, in that a website is more easily verified. Andrewa (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Boomwacker is a different issue. I'll concede thet it looks notable. It is an unfortunate victim of another crossfire where I was wrong.
 * Re the others.
 * Where have I looked? Google, Google News, Factiva.
 * You've chose to focus on the one that is outside the main concern, every article other than Boomwacker has been supported by a link to the authors shop. In most cases two links to the creators store. aEch page contributed to has been a mix of OR and self published promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "The contributor has a large and valuable dead-tree library, and simply did not realise that citing these paper sources would be more appreciated here than links to drum shop sites and the like.of" ?WP:V. ?


 * Sorry about the stringing. Replying to User:Duffbeerforme above, Verifiability is a content guideline concerning the article space, and very relevant to this discussion, but I'm not quite sure what your question is. Andrewa (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have called attention to that particular AfD simply because it shows that your methodology for deciding to raise an AfD is faulty. Agree with most of the rest of this.


 * But you have now made another unsubstantiated and unhelpful charge: The supposed link between LA Rentals and User:Xylosmygame.


 * At the top of your edit box for this page should be a stern warning that reads in part commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive. Yes, it can be a hard line to draw. But unsubstantiated charges of spamming and COI are unhelpful. The first thing to do is to contact the user, ask them to disclose any COI (or alternatively to refrain from editing the article in question), and point them to the relevant content and style guidelines.


 * And this doesn't appear to have happened. There's been some discussion at User talk:Xylosmygame but it seems to start at the presumption that this is all worthless spam. And now you have raised AfDs in which the spamming charge is in the first sentence of the rationale, and continue to raise the (possibly valid) COI charge based on zero investigation of that particular point so far as I can see. It's guesswork.


 * You have raised some valid points both here and on the user's talk page, I agree with many of them. But others are a little over the top at this stage.


 * My hope remains that we'll end up with a large number of redirects to a section in the Emil Richards article. On the evidence, and on the recent merge decision at Articles for deletion/L.A. Percussion Rentals, that seems the way to go for now. Andrewa (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the above should be including Boomwacher, not except. He put a link to his business in there too.
 * The connection between the editor and the company is substantiated. The editor previously known as User:LAPercRentals has let us know. See the "COI contribs from Xylosmygame (talk · contribs)" section here. They were also told about policies on COI. His reply was a rant about how he was an expert, how he knew best and how he'd done his own original research.
 * I did my investigation and I resent your assumption that I hadn't.
 * Is there any spamming? Someone thought so here "rv linkspam, inappropriate refs". Somene else thought so here "Redirect to existing info about tuned anvils (and less spammy, too!)". Yes there has been spamming, it might not have been the intent (I have never said it was) but it was the result. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the link to the now blocked User:LAPercRentals and to User talk:DoriSmith/Archive 13#COI contribs from Xylosmygame (talk · contribs) (I'm assuming that's the section you meant to link to).


 * It does appear that I was mistaken about your research and the spamming. But please note that I did ask for these links very early in the piece, and you have only just provided them. So frankly, I think you have nobody but yourself to blame for the assumption.


 * And I still think it possible that you're being a bit hard on this new contributor, and hasty in nominating the articles for deletion. They have made mistakes but have also shown every willingness to comply with Wikipedia policy when it's been pointed out to them.


 * I'm attempting to contact them offline, to follow up the claim that there are dead-tree sources to support these articles. What I'm particularly looking for in the case of the pipe gamelan is secondary sources that report its usage on recordings on which we have articles. If sources can't be found, then deletion is certainly an option. Depending on the sources, redirection may also be an option.


 * Are there other relevant wikilinks you can provide? The problem with offline discussion is that I may be restricted by netiquette and privacy considerations in what I can report back here.


 * We also have a problem in that the best example of the spam is in the deleted userpage User:LAPercRentals, which is now only accessible to admins. Note however that the user was blocked for an inappropriate username, not for spamming, and that they have apologised for both mistakes, while strongly and perhaps rightly protesting at the pending deletion of all of their contributions. Andrewa (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.