Gangreen (hip hop group) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Reason: A7 (Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject). My opinion: I created a page dedicated to one of the famous underground hip-hop groups of 90's - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangreen_(hip_hop_group). I spent a lot of time creating it. Page was speedy deleted with this reason: A7: Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. What it means? If I understand correctly, this mean that the group did not make a special contribution to the music culture. Right ? Ok, what contribution to the music culture did these groups: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Firm_(hip_hop_group) ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMC_(hip_hop_group) ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.O.U._(hip-hop_group) ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InI_(hip_hop_group) ?

Gangreen - It's exactly the same hip-hop group that deserves to have her story here. They were more popular than all these groups. I spent a lot of time to create this page and not one day. Nobody paid me for this page, it's the information I collected over the years. Please respect other people's work. Please let it be! Felix Montana (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No. @Felix Montana: As was already explained for you, other articles with potential problems does not justify creating an article that fails to meet basic standards. The only subjects that "deserve" articles are notable ones, ones for which there are independent reliable sources about. You have admitted that there are no sources for Gangreen, which means they do not "deserve" an article, period. Work that you happen to do (remember, you don't own anything here) would get more respect if you respected our policies. Repeating the same arguments over and over is disruptive, stop doing that and start paying attention to what other people tell you. You would be better off looking for independent, professionally-published journalistic sources instead of fighting for a draft that will never be a proper article. If someone gave you the draft to keep for some other reason and you kept re-creating it, we would delete it maybe one more time and then block you for disruptive editing. If, however, you follow the instructions I left on your talk page, you could very easily create a good article about Gangreen (assuming that one can be made at all). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson: I used in this article all sources that i found via Google. Some things I learned from the members of this group. Journalists have never written about this group, journalists wrote only about the death of one of the members of this group in 2007 - his name is X1 (and one of these links I used in my article). In this case I am the only journalist of this group. All that can be found on the Internet is information about the releases of this group and solo projects. The information I found was mostly stored on social networks - myspace, facebook, soundcloud. I have collected this information for a long time. Two members of this group are still continuing their solo career, and this article in a sense is their biography for their children and their relatives. Yes, I know, this is not a super popular group like the NWA or Wu-Tang Clan. But this group was created by Fredro Starr (member of the group ONYX). And if we look at other articles with the title "(hip-hop group)" such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InI_(hip_hop_group) or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.O.U._(hip-hop_group) - all that we can find on these articles is link on AllMusic or link on releases of the groups (on Discogs) so at least for this reason I think that the article about the group "Gangreen" should exist, there is more information about the group's releases (that i collected for years) and there are also links to the YouTube (where ONYX members talk about their group "Gangreen") and there is article about death one of these members (X1). Therefore, I ask you to leave this article. No one will ever create this article in the future and certainly will not do it better than me, because they do not have this information. About articles on other websites i can also add these sources: http://90erhiphop.de/2015/gang-green-ft-onyx-ill-murder-you-1995-harte-kost-aus-dem-untergrund-nycs/ + http://tributetodeadrappers.blogspot.com/2015/04/date-of-birth-1979-no-relevant.html Felix Montana (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not going to read anything I say, then don't bother responding. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion- This music group does not seem notable, and I back the judgment of the three(!) administrators who say it's a slam-dunk A7. Reyk _YO! 10:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse this is a pretty clear A7, the only thing which gives me any pause at all is the vague association with Onyx (hip hop group), who do appear to be notable. For the article to stay somebody will ultimately have to show that the subject meets WP:NMUSIC, either by providing suitable source coverage or by showing it meets one of the other criteria (e.g. appearing on charts). The sources provided above are not remotely sufficient to establish this. The existence of other articles isn't relevant, it may be that those should be deleted as well. The notability criteria require that suitable sources exist, not necessarily that the article cites them. Hut 8.5 18:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson: Thank you for the advice! Thank you all! I worked a little bit with the article and filled it with links to another sources. I was forced to create a new article with changes, because the name of the group on singles and posters is spelled separately Gang Green. I hope that you will appreciate my work and completely delete my previous page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangreen_(hip_hop_group)). I hope I did not break any rules when I created a new page "Gang Green (hip-hop group)": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_Green_(hip_hop_group) Felix Montana (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I've deleted the latest page. Felix has been warned before on this, so I've blocked him for 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, and get the SALT out. Stifle (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson: Yes, I know that basically in Wikipedia there are always links to websites where we can find an interview for a group, but since the Gang Green as the group was active between 1995 and 1998, they only had interviews on television (according to biography group, written by Who$ane on his official page on the Soundcloud) or perhaps in magazines. Let's not forget the fact that in the 90's, the Internet was not as developed as it is now! The only place where you could read an article about your favorite group is magazines (which began to be digitized only in the 2000s). The only place where you could see your favorite group is at concerts or on television (an interview on MTV, for example), or watch their video on video player. Therefore, it is very difficult to find any evidence of the existence of the group in the 90's, and since the group does not exist anymore (but its former members are still active, and one of them is tragically dead), then I have to refer to the biographies of these members written by them on their social networks (Soundcloud, Facebook). But social networks are not my only sources in the article! I followed your advice, added the page number in the book, added a quote and made an article use the Article wizard: Gang Green (hip-hop group) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gang_Green_(hip-hop_group) Felix Montana (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Felix Montana: If you really followed my advice, then why is the very first reference a Wordpress blog? Because (as I told you), Anyone can create entries on Wordpress, Facebook, Discogs, Youtube, or Soundcloud -- those are not reliable sources. I don't just mean "they're no good for demonstrating notability," I mean they're no good at all. Even if the Youtube videos are for interviews, or the Soundcloud page is for the official account of one of the group's members, those are not independent.

Multiple users have explained to you in a variety of ways that you need to cite professionally-published independent sources. You keep going on about things that are completely irrelevant to the lack of professionally-published independent sources. Excuses are not sources. You keep including sources that ludicrously fail the standard of "professionally-published independent sources." Do you really believe that this is a professionally-published independent source? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson: Sorry, the very first reference i deleted because this is general information about the group. I appreciate every opinion. I understand that you require me to add links to articles on websites created between 1995 and 1998, but at that time the Internet was bad. And besides, the group does not exist now. This article is about what kind of group this group was in the 90's. The article was created for the future generation to study hip-hop music in the 90's. I'm sorry if there's something wrong, I used all the sources I found. Thank you for attention! Felix Montana (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't have to be websites. It's fine to cite newspapers, magazines, books, printed articles etc as long as they come from reliable sources (places with a reputation for accuracy). If the band was covered by newspapers or magazines in the 90s then that would likely be enough to establish notability, but you'll need to supply citations. Hut 8.5 19:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo Crews (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Using Apollo Crews’ page as an example, I am raising a challenge to the deletion of the “In wrestling” section from Wikipedia articles on professional wrestling due to what I feel are several major problems with the decision. I’m also relatively new to challenging deletions and other internal Wikipedia issues, so this may not be 100% clear and perfect.

• 1. There were significant procedural violations with the deletion. A group of 8 WT:PW editors does not speak for the pro wrestling and Wikipedia communities as a whole, and as shown by the page, public consensus seems to be against the editors’ decision. The decision was initially very quiet and under-the-radar, with little publicity, which appeared to be an attempt to make the decision official and close debate before anyone aside from the few editors could voice their opinions on the subject, which once again indicates significant procedural error.
• 2. There have been violations of WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS, as it is clear on the page that the consensus outside of the few editors is against the decision, yet this continues to be ignored and put aside.
• 3. There have been repeated violations of WP:Civility, as, directly or indirectly, the editors have demeaned those who disagree with the decision via simply branding the dissent as WP:Fancruft or assuming that most dissent has come from a Reddit thread on the topic which attracted considerable attention. There has also been repeated use of sarcasm and snarky remarks towards those who disagree with the decision.
• 4. The deletion negates a major source of information in the article, much of which is difficult to put into prose. Many have used this section as a “fast facts” style section to gain basic information on a wrestler without having to read a massive block of text in the main article; removing the bullet-point list and inserting the (subjectively-judged) “important” info as prose completely defeats the point of having the info in the first place.
• 5. For a variety of reasons, the deletions are motivated by hardline deletionism that has seemingly taken over Wikipedia, with the movement to brand all information not “neatly organized” as useless trivia and have it removed. This has a massive amount of problems that I don’t even need to delve into, though I will say that it is important to consider both inclusionist and deletionist arguments in a debate such as this, which clearly has not been done. The Kip (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]