Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Robert Bloom (2)

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was procedural close. Article has been moved to mainspace at Robert Bloom, and any further challenge should take place at AfD JohnCD (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Robert Bloom (2)


The current main contributing editor has expressed unwillingness to rewrite this in a formal encyclopaedic style in a message to me on my talk page. In view of this there is little point in this remaining here unless another editor takes the task on. While WP:AFC goes some measure of protection from WP:COI there is one here. This may explain the reluctance of the editor to take advice. Fiddle  Faddle  08:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I asked FiddleFaddle to help me to reach another editor from whom I received an email but whose comment I was not able to find and read. I have not heard whether he succeeded in doing so.


 * In the course of our correspondence, I humbly expressed the opinion to FiddleFaddle that Doris Kern Goodwin and David McCullough were appropriate models for authors of biography. The Wiki bio of Leonard Bernstein is, like this one, under scrutiny for providing too much information. I am carrying on this conversation with the hope that you will see my point.  Your service to humanity is invaluable but not without including invaluable content, which is far different in the classical arts in America than for other types of submissions.  Do you have a specialist in the performing arts (in America) who could review this before I give up and allow you to remove it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SLBloom (talk • contribs) 14:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This is not the place to discuss those matters. Talk pages are, and, ideally. not mine. This place is for the discussion of the retention or removal of this draft. You have received answers to your questions on my talk page. Your 'point' is irrelevant here. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and has rules for articles. This draft is impossible to accept. You need to perform the work required.  Fiddle   Faddle  15:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear FiddleFaddle, Perhaps you should (politely) instruct me how to reach your editorial board to take up my mission to have Wikipedia allow not just hard cold factual information, not just what, but also how and why in its biographies. I have been using encyclopedias since 1950 and have learned much about transformational figures in various disciplines because of articles that went beyond what you are describing as your editorial standard. Surely your early guidelines are not calcified.  And perhaps you should (politely) instruct me how I should have reached out to someone at Wiki to let Forgetaboutit or however he/she spells his/her name that I did not see his/her comment although I received a No-Reply email saying that he/she posted a comment.  Would that be a professional courtesy, not an inappropriate "errand"?  I have never been impolite; I do disagree profoundly with your editorial policy and hope to be heard by the decision makers.  Oh yes, I do find silly nicknames offensive when we are discussing the future of the American culture and how to document its past and give understanding to present and future readers of Wiki entries.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.186.191.58 (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User:SLBloom, once again, here are instructions on contacting the person you are seeking to contact, directly and without requiring help from anybody else. Also, a pointer to the correct place to argue wiki-policies.


 * Click this link. User_talk:Fuhghettaboutit, click 'new section' at the top, enter in a polite message saying what your question or issue is (e.g. "Dear User:Fuhghettaboutit, although you responded to me via OTRS, I was unable to actually see that response, can you please repost it here on-wiki"), then click save.   p.s. Stop insulting their admittedly-pretty-silly-sounding username; they are free to pick such a username, and you are 100% in the wrong here, complaining about their pick, and they are 100% within their rights here, to pick a username of their WP:CHOICE.  The appropriate wiki-law that explains why you are wrong and Fuhghettaboutit is perfectly within wiki-policies, can be viewed at WP:NICE.
 * As for your more profound question, about how to reach the "editorial board" of wikipedia, you have reached it, and you are in fact a member of it. This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit.  However, this is NOT the encyclopedia anyone can edit in any which way they choose.  There are some wiki-laws.  They are set in wiki-stone.  You are free to argue with the wiki-laws, and attempt to rewrite what hath been engraved into the wiki-tablets-of-stone, but this (aka this specific subpage here) is not the place for such discussions, please see WP:BUREAUCRACY.  If you wish to have a policy-discussion about changing WP:NPOV, the neutral-just-the-cold-hard-facts policy, the correct place is WT:NPOV, where you can open up a new section, and make your suggestions.  Remember to be WP:NICE in your tone, and explain that you are a beginning editor -- though not a beginning reader of encyclopedias and encyclopedic prose -- and that you genuinely believe that wikipedia will benefit from having biographies written so as to give the sense of life, the colorful anecdotes, and the personal views of the subjects.  This is *not* an unreasonable request, although to be frank, you're not going to get anywhere, I've seen this exact discussion many times before.
 * The REASON you will get nowhere, is because your request is, in effect, to remake wikipedia into a collection of idiosyncratic essays, rather than a collection of neutral-prose encyclopedia-articles. This is a very long-running debate!  Since 2001, when wikipedia first came into existence, there have been folks pushing for a vastly more liberal and vastly less wiki-rule-controlled approach to content.  You are in good company, but you are also on the losing-end of the stick, for the last fifteen years; after discussions, it always becomes apparent that if we permit colorful filled-with-life biographies, we will also have to permit infomercials about every product and self-published book in existence, we will also have to permit 'homepages' for conspiracy theorists of all stripes, we will also have to permit articles about every single garage band in existence, and so on and so forth.  WP:NPOV is the chief bulwark against commericially-motivated-spam, trivial unencyclopedic details, and other such problems:  wikipedia sticks to what the wiki-reliable sources say, summarizing them in neutral just-the-facts prose, because thataway we don't have to suffer under a flood of unending spam, and otherwise we assuredly would.


 * In closing, I hope this advice gets through your determination, to wage your self-assigned wiki-battle and complete your self-assigned wiki-mission. We're not your wiki-enemies, we're your co-editorial-board-members.  If you don't accept this, I can show you how to submit a request to the site-administrators, aka the wiki-admins, aka the wiki-cops, but I can guarantee they will just explain to you what the wiki-policies are, and where you are failing to comply.  They don't have special powers to remake the wiki-verse, and if they *did* try to remake the wiki-verse, unilaterally, they themselves would be blocked for disruption, by the other 1200 admins, most of whom think wikipedia is functioning just fine, as-is. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Mentioned on the talkpage of WP:CLASSICAL to attract additional notice.


 * Move to mainspace and let the WP:MERCILESS editing commence, by members of wikipedia's official editorial board, such as it is. User:SLBloom has correctly picked a wiki-notable topic, in this case a BLP (deceased 1994), whose band the "Bach Aria Group" received reviews in the WP:RS (WQXR and Deseret News) during the years 1960 and 1980 at least.  Furthermore, besides their band, the BLP also had some solo hits, with dedicated press-coverage in 2000 and 2001 (Fanfare (magazine) and Oxford University Press).  This BLP received obituaries in the NYT as well as in philly.com, again both WP:RS publications.  That's three coverage-bursts, and thus, I believe that with the sources already in hand, we shall be able to satisfy WP:42.
 * Additionally, there appears to be significant WP:COI at play here, both on the basis of a shared last name, and also on the basis of a self-published anthology that figures prominently in the draft. Although attempts to reason with User:SLBloom are ongoing, these attempts cannot be properly enforced in draftspace where WP:COI editing *is* permissible, hence my suggestion that a move to mainspace will best accomplish improving the encyclopedia in the shortest amount of time.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment That is an interesting approach. I am cautiously in favour of it, though feel it better were this to be done in Draft: namespace. However I have no strong feelings either way. Fiddle   Faddle  17:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment After some extensive pruning & some ref finetuning I moved the article to mainspace Don't know if I should have this MfD still being open. But the guy is notable, excessive promotion has been removed (some editorialising style still needs work, but that & other improvements can be done in mainspace). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * in order to stop the fragmentation of discussions over several pages, and while there's an obvious WP:COI involvement, I suggest you edit Talk:Robert Bloom and only that page fortwith for anything regarding the Wikipedia biography of Robert Bloom (use edit COI on that talk page to propose edits to the biography). Only if things can't be settled there WP:COIN would be an alternative. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:30, 2 September 2015 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.