Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/March 2007/tuben

Case Filed On: 12:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedian filing request:



Other Wikipedians this pertains to:



Wikipedia pages this pertains to:



Questions:
Have you read the AMA FAQ?
 * Answer:Yes

'''How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)'''
 * Answer: content dispute

'''What methods of Dispute Resolution have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.'''
 * Answer: I have sent simple notes to the other users explaining my position with either no response, or a response of "Stop being disruptive or you'll be blocked."

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?
 * Answer: I would be happy with multiple, locked pages for different Robert Coulter entries. One page listing all entries for Robert Coulter and then separate pages for each desired entry.

Summary:
I created the Robert Coulter page for my boss, a pipe organ builder. Then Weggie, and One Night in Hackney edited the page to have it be about a Northern Ireland politician. I attempted to move their entry to Robert Coulter - Policitian, they moved it back and threatened me with blockage of my editing privileges for being 'disruptive'.

Discussion:
Ignoring for a moment the problem of conflict of interest, The article on Robert I. Coulter fails to assert notability per the notability guideline. Organ building is a very small world and I struggled to find sources even for Noel Mander, in fact the sources are a bit thin for Father Willis, Arp Schnitger and Father Smith, but at least in those cases we have real paper books about those worthies. I could not find enough sources for Kenneth Tickell at all and Harrison & Harrison is unsourced. Crossing the pond, Allen Organ is unsourced, Wurlitzer needs a lot of work, Steiner-Reck has no article at all... well, you get the picture. Under these circumstances, with globally significant organ builders struggling to get enough sources for a verifiable article and evidence of notability (specifically, multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject), it is very very hard to write an article on a "promising" builder which does not qualify for speedy deletion. Sorry, that's how it is. I know hundreds of world-class musicians who do not pass the notability bar, and easily a dozen important (in their field) manufacturers of organs and french horns for whom I am similarly unable to find sources. Harsh reality, I'm afraid: people will write obsessively about Abi Titmuss, who has as far as I can tell no discernible talent whatsoever and is slightly less inteligent than the average house brick, but Giovanni Punto was shockingly omitted from the encyclopaedia altogether until I looked him up. And that's a man who inspired Beethoven to write and play as a duet his Opus 17 Sonata for piano and horn, leading one critic to comment: "Who is this Beethoven? Punto, of course, we know..." I also found Peter Hurford absent, and his Bach recordings are still considered definitive by many. We only have stub articles on many, many prodigious talents in the musical world. Oh my God! I have just discovered that we do not even have an article for Wayne Marshall! I know what I'm doing this evening, then. Guy (Help!) 15:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * For comments from one of the cited parties see Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/March 2007/tuben

Unfortunately I believe the notability guideline to be open to interpretation. If someone is notable in their field shouldn't that mean they would pass the guideline? I've never heard of Robert Coulter the politician, but he is obviously important in his field. But I have taken this to a mediator, he has made excellent points and I will act in accordance with those suggestions.

Tuben

Followup:
When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:

Did you find the Advocacy process useful?
 * Answer:

Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?
 * Answer:

On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?
 * Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?
 * Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?
 * Answer:

If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?
 * Answer:

If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?
 * Answer:

AMA Information
Case Status: NEW

Advocate Status:
 * None assigned.