Hosta

by | Mar 16, 2018 | Hosta

How Can We Help?
You are here:
< Back

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Wisconsin. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Wisconsin|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Wisconsin. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Wisconsin

Tornado outbreak sequence of May 19–27, 2024

Tornado outbreak sequence of May 19–27, 2024 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The claim that this was a single event is WP:SYNTH by Wikipedia editors. I haven't checked all 99 sources, but at a glance none of them talk about a week-long "tornado outbreak sequence". Because these events aren't part of a single outbreak sequence. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You...nominate an article for deletion with 99 RS sources, including one of the strongest tornadoes in history, with full RS sources published within the last 48 hours? Really? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. List of United States tornadoes in May 2024 exists separately from this article, which appears to be about individual tornadoes on these dates which no source appears to claim were a single "outbreak sequence". Walsh90210 (talk) 03:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A tornado outbreak sequence is just multiple back-to-back tornado outbreaks. That definition is scientifically published and sourced. Tornado outbreak#Tornado outbreak sequence. You should not have AfDed this, but rather gone to the talk page for split attempts. I absolutely highly oppose a deletion of this article, given it is absolutely notable for Wikipedia and no one can question that. You have an issue with the article name and should have used WP:SPLIT and WP:RM...not AfD. You did not look at what to do before nominations for deletion, which would have mentioned that. Just to note, you are directly saying (through a deletion nomination) the article should not exist...despite having 99 RS sources, including a high WP:LASTING impact with clear LASTING coverage. So no, you will not gain any support for this AFD as this is a very botched AFD. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy oppose and recommend a fast-paced WP:SNOW-close for the above reasons by WeatherWriter. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 03:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not intend to withdraw this; this is still clearly not a suitable topic for an article. List of United States tornadoes in May 2024 is suitable, and Draft:2024 Greenfield tornado probably would be as well; this is not. The concept of a "tornado outbreak sequence" that conflates every weather event across 2000 miles for 8 days is not supported by the sources. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your !vote has been noted. You believe the article's content should not exist, meaning you are challenging the notability of it, more or less over the idea that it is a "tornado outbreak sequence" name, which could easily be fixed with splits and requested moved. I do appreciate you clarifying that your deletion reason isn't strictly the name "tornado outbreak sequence" but rather "this is still clearly not a suitable topic for an article." The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Walsh90210: If I may ask, why do you oppose the idea of splitting this into multiple tornado outbreak articles? The idea of "tornado outbreaks" are supported by the sources ("A deadly tornado outbreak..."[1] Also, it is very obvious that there were several tornadoes across the United States during that timeframe. Why are you opposed to something like "May 19-27 severe storms" or even splitting it up into individual events like the sources do (i.e. Tornado outbreak of May 19, 2024, Tornado outbreak of May 20, 2024, ect..) or renaming it to "severe storms" when sources use it more. For example, "The May 19, 2024 Severe Weather Event" as named by the U.S. government. I am asking the question, because your arguing that none of the information should be on Wikipedia, yet also saying there are 99 RS sources for it. I just provided a couple of RS sources, helping prove why the content is notable.
That is more what I am asking. Are you challenging the exact term "tornado outbreak sequence" or the content in general? That is actually unclear here. Specifying that would be helpful. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primarily the term "tornado outbreak sequence" (which I hopefully have criticized enough already); I am not claiming that none of this content should be on Wikipedia in any form. Some of the content might be reasonable for a stand-alone article (though the various WP:MILL weather bulletins don't count for GNG), other content might be reasonable at the existing article List of United States tornadoes in May 2024. A blank-and-redirect to List of United States tornadoes in May 2024 would still require an AFD discussion. Walsh90210 (talk) 04:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Walsh90210: I promise, my last reply to you/in this AfD. To note, no a "blanking" does not require an AfD. See Wikipedia:Merging. The only instances for AfD are when it directly meets the deletion policy, specifically one or more of the "reasons for deletion". AfD should be used when the nominator feels the content should not be on Wikipedia at all. Based on what you have described so far, you really should not have used AfD (as I and other editors in here now) have stated. Merge discussions, split discussions, renaming discussions, or just a general talk page discussion were all very much valid options. For a simple term, such as "tornado outbreak sequence", that doesn't meet any of the deletion reasons. The only real actual valid deletion reason you partially mentioned was that it may not meet the notability guidelines. In short, for this specific AfD, that is the only thing really being looked at by editors, whether it passes those deletion reasons.
Now that 3 other editors have also someone stated a similar thing (i.e. keep the content, discussion for "tornado outbreak sequence" should occur elsewhere), I would honestly recommend withdrawing the AfD and then starting either a merge discussion (WP:MERGE), a renaming discussion (WP:MOVE), a split discussion (WP:SPLIT) or just a general talk page discussion to see what other editors think should occur next (Talk:Tornado outbreak sequence of May 19–27, 2024). Wikipedia isn't a vote and discussions are based on the merits of comments and reasonings, but hopefully you can also see what others are saying. Very short summary: Your concern is valid and should be addressed, just you happen to pick the one process that isn't for addressing that type of concern. Any of the things I mentioned above are absolutely perfect for discussing that issue. But not a full-on deletion discussion. I won't comment in this again, and you are welcome to keep the AfD open, but as an editor, I would highly recommend withdrawing the AfD and starting one of the four processes above. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather obviously keep, as a noteworthy event or sequence of events. There might be grounds to consider splitting the article if the sources don't support treating the events together based either on causal relationship or proximity in time and location, or some combination of the two; but that would not be grounds for deletion. P Aculeius (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per P Aculeius. If RS doesn't support tying all this RS material together, split or remove parts that don't fit with an RS-based theme. This should have been an editing exercise discussed on the article's talk page rather than coming here. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 04:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, Canada, Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia (U.S. state), Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article is well research with almost a hundred sources, and details a pretty significant event, thus WP:N. —Mjks28 (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it is far preferred to group a handful of back to back tornado outbreaks together in this manner for ease of access and because while there are multiple outbreaks covered sometimes drawing the line of when one outbreak ends and the next begins can be difficult, would constitute original research, and doing so lies outside the purposes of Wikipedia. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 13:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This article seems to be a well-researched, well-sourced, and significant event which definitely does deserve to be an article, let alone content on here at all. /srs
Thanks, NorthStarMI. (Talk in the galaxy) 13:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marijuana Pepsi Vandyck

Marijuana Pepsi Vandyck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTA AND WP:GNG BryceM2001 (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article could have a better career section, but I have heard about Dr Vandyck outside of WP for her academic career, and believe from this that she is notable. Probably meets WP:NACADEMIC at least if someone can collect sources on her publications. Kingsif (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There are a number of sources about the subject, but all centre around (what they see as) her unusual name. Vandyck's research has not yet made significant impact in her discipline to meet WP:NACADEMIC. All in all WP:TOOSOON. – Ploni💬  00:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed that most articles focus on her name in some way, but there are other Wikipedia articles with that kind of focus, like Place names considered unusual. Not sure why coverage for that aspect would be necessarily less legitimate. Benny White (talk) 02:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets WP:BASIC and I don't think the exclusions apply. There are many reliable sources. Most are from the same timeframe (2019), but not all. One that is currently included in the article is from 2009. Benny White (talk) 02:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Georgia (U.S. state), Illinois, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No pass of WP:Prof with zero cites of GS. Not enough achievement yet for WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Redirect and lightly merge to Naming in the United States. I'm seeing a single source from 2009, and a flurry of sources from 2019, all human interest stories about the unusual name. This looks like a WP:BLP1E to me. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per WP:BLP1E, all coverage is a single point in time about her getting a PhD. No pass of WP:Prof and no pass of GNG. --hroest 17:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article is notable in my opinion, but could benefit from more sources. Mjks28 (talk) 05:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems like many good sources with significant coverage from 2019-2020. There is also a in-depth article from 2009. I think this establishes enough notability to keep the article. – notwally (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Stetina

AfDs for this article:
Troy Stetina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I nominated this before but it was closed as no consensus since there were no other participates. Same reasoning as before applies: fails WP:MUSICBIO and quite promotional. Can’t find any in-depth sources on the subject. The cited Washington Post article [2] is about the subject’s father, Wayne Stetina. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Indiana, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Strong Delete. I suggest that, if nobody comes to support it, it should be considered as a prod. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. This subject is not notable enough for an article. Qflib (talk) 03:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To be notable through publishing works on how to play guitar, we would need in-depth published reviews of those works, and I don't see them. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep on a hunch (i.e., easily overruled). Coverage is basically blog and genre-magazine style, which needs a lot to add up to notability, but there is a lot out there (even discounting some that seem more like PR/Press-release interview type). Head of department (conservatories often don't have traditional academic ranks) but of a small department. Each part of his career adds up to slightly less than the relevant notability guideline, but together they peek just over the edge for me. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Any non-blog, non-PR sources you would like to share? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is well known in the guitar community and among musicians for his instruction releases. The problem is that this article is poorly sourced so I can see why it attracts a deletion nom. I know that his Left-Handed Guitar: The Complete Method by Stetina, Troy (2001) is quite popular. Yes of course, it takes more than good sales. His Fretboard Mastery was very popular too. He's had articles about him in various guitar mags both paper and online. The Guitarist magazine March 1993 is one. He had article beside Dominic Miller and Tony Zemaitis as you can see. The Guitar Noise website which is a huge go-to source for axmen and axeladies refers to Stetina as an "internationally recognized guitarist and music educator". There's others too but I don't want to get too caught up with this one. Further info below
    * This is from the magazine, Modern Drummer, September 1993 - Page 106 SPEED AND THRASH METAL DRUM METHOD by Troy Stetina and Charlie Busher.
    * And there's an article by Stetina published in Guitar One, Volume 9, No 2 February 2006 - Page 176 RETURN OF THE SHRED Come Together Two Essential Hybrid Scales
    There's more but searching gets flooded with the dozens of releases he has had put out. Karl Twist (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those two books on Amazon have about 200 reviews each. This one is ranked 16,000+ in Music Instruction & Study. By no stretch of the imagination are these "popular" books and they don't contribute to notability.
    • Is this an article he wrote?
    • 1) The Guitar Noise website seems to be just a group blog about how to play the guitar. 2) The link you gave is just him responding to someone else's comment. That "internationally recognized" line is a promotional line he wrote himself (as per his own website).
    • The two articles in Modern Drummer and Guitar one are articles written by Stetina not articles about Stetina. They don't contribute to notability. You would need to find in-depth articles about Stetina.
    Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the Amazon books have more reviews than releases by so-called main-stream artists. They do appear to be quite popular! And I wasn't trying to use them as proof of notability. Just to give an idea of what the guy's exposure is. Somebody in Germany must have heard of him, there's a German Wikipedia article (needs work) See here.
    Forget the Guitar Noise one, that wasn't the one I meant to put in. Sorry. It was another online music news source. I have to try and remember. There was also a reliable source good size review on that I thought I had put in but for the life of me it's vanished. I went back though the page history and it isn't there. Maybe I thought I did. Perhaps it was on notepad, and I closed it before I had edited it in. It was similar to the Fret 12 review but not related to the sale of the product. The Modern Drummer (if it isn't about him) and Guitar One still show his profile. They are well-respected and notable publications. Well, there's no article page for Guitar One yet.

    The articles below are relaible,

    Karl Twist (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but almost all of those sources are interviews with the subject. Interviews are considered primary sources and they don’t contribute to notability. The only non-interview source in there is the Journal Times article. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello again Dr. Swag Lord . Well actually the first part of the OnMilwaukee article is not interview. The subject was researched (as it's the normal procedure) before the interview was conducted. And if considered primary, it's not like it's from the subject's own site anyway. Yes, I understand that primary sources and sources related to the subject themselves cannot be used to support content in a page. By that's not what we're looking at. We're looking at the status of the subject and the reliable sources that support the assertion that he is a notable person. The Maximum Ink is similar. Well, the first 196 worlds / 15 sentences (not including the title) are about him and not by him. The interview is secondary. There are two Journal Times articles. Then there's the Modern Drummer article by Matt Pieken about his book-cd combo, Speed and Thrash Metal Drum Method that he did with Charlie Bushor. It's about his work, not written by him.

    Going on what user Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert said earlier with "together they peek just over the edge", well with what I've come up with, the interviews by respected news sources etc., his contributions to major music magazines etc., collectively they well and truly sit on top of the table. And the Modern Drummer review proves it more. And this below, a C&P of what I edited into the article page,

    According to La Scena Musicale, Stetina was booked along with Leo Kottke, Antoine Dufour, Ana Vidovic, and Jonathan Kreisberg to appear at the Wilson Center Guitar Competition & Festival which ran from August 13 to 15, 2015, at the Sharon Lynne Wilson Center for the Arts. La Scena Musicale, 3 August 2015 - International Guitar Legends Headlining Wilson Center Guitar Competition & Festival: 2015 Artists include Leo Kottke, Antoine Dufour, Ana Vidovic, Jonathan Kreisberg, Troy Stetina

    It's obvious when Stetina is mentioned in the same headline such as these premier artists, he's well and widely known in various fields and notable. His volume of work speaks for itself, especially when artists such as Mark Tremonti, Michael Angelo Batio, Bill Peck, and Eric Friedman appear on Troy Stetina: The Sound and the Story etc. etc.. For him not to be notable would be an exception to the rule.

    Karl Twist (talk) 06:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Modern Drummer article is a short review of one of Stetina’s books. It has no in-depth content of the subject’s life or activities.
    • Please note, the article in La Scena Musicale is an example of WP:SPONSORED content. At the bottom of the article it states: “LSM Newswire is La Scena's Newswire service. Organizations can post a press release on our website for a fee. See the media kit at our advertising page at https://myscena.org/advertising”. Since that is an ad paid for by the band it is not RS and does not add to notability.
    • You say there’s two Journal Times articles, but you linked to the same one twice.
    • Please take a look at WP:NOTINHERITED. Just because the subject has been associated with notable individuals does not make him notable himself.
    Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On a further note, “metalshockfinland.com” and “guitariste-metal.fris” are certainly not RSs (obviously blog sources). Also, Maximum Ink seems WP:QS at best. There’s no published editorial board, no published editorial policies. Additionally, it’s quite suspicious that the article links to the Wikipedia page of Tony Stetina and links to places where you can purchase Stetina’s CD (seems pretty promotional to me). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the Modern Drummer review isn't what I would call short. It's an acceptable size. It's not supposed to be about an "in-depth content of the subject’s life or activities". It's a review of his work.
    • Ok if one of them such as La Scena Musicale is an example of WP:SPONSORED content. There's enough of the other! And as I mentioned with Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert saying "but together they peek just over the edge for me", I go further and say there's enough reliable stuff to sit him on top of the table!
    • Sorry my bad about the Journal Times. Yes, it was one article. There was the additional updated page.
    • Well the WP:NOTINHERITED would be the card to pull out if there were no other good supporting info about him. But thankfully there is! The point I made about him being associated with notable individuals was that he is regarded as prominent.
    • “metalshockfinland.com” and “guitariste-metal.fris” are possibly blog type in format. But the first one has been used to reference around fifty+ pages here, (most of them about heavy metal no surprise) and is a respected source of info.
    • Nothing suspicious or promotional about the German page for Troy Stetina. Because he's been so prolific with his published works, the searches get flooded with them and for someone who has German as a first language and English as second, this is how a page would be likely to add up. I'm not going to make any assertions about lazy editing because I'm not going to judge an editor's ability. I'd just go with the language thing.
      Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well since the topic of this article is Troy Stetina, the Modern Dummer review fails WP:SIGCOV. There’s no material about Stetina specifically. If you really think metal shock Finland is an RS, then I think I’ll open up a discussion on RSN. Also, I never mentioned the German Wikipedia page—I was referencing the Maximum Ink article that has a link at the bottom directing us to Stetina’s en WP page. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I opened a RSN discussion on the above source: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#metalshockfinland Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The Modern Drummer article doesn't fail anything! It's just a good review of a release of his. A review in a well-respected publication. Actually, you said earlier (18:29, 11 June 2024) that it was written by him. It was actually written by Matt Pieken. And actually, I believe that somewhere here someone said that there were no reviews of his work. Well there's the Matt Pieken review in Modern Drummer and another which I have to re-find. Incidentally, Pieken has done reviews for artists such as Jane's Addiction. And OK, minus one Metal Shock by Mohsen Fayyazi if it be so. Well, we still have good enough on him to support the Keep status.

      Yes, I see that you've opened an RSN discussion on Metal Shock. OK, what can I say.

      The fact that Stetina has written for two of the two of the biggest selling guitar mags is additional proof of his status. He was employed by Guitar One and wrote for Guitar World. Just a quick grab of the Ozwinds site where it says, "Go inside the mind of one of the most accomplished guitar instructors in history", you said something previously that this was copied from his website. Well, perhaps one or two others may have done this, or he has copied on to his website what has been said about him. Most to the majority of sites refer to him as something similar, I guess this is because this is what he is!

      To tell the truth I'm not that keen on heavy metal or this type of music. I had heard of Stetina in the past but didn't know that much about him. If I didn't think he was notable I would have just gone for a re-direct or maybe wouldn't have bothered at all.

      Karl Twist (talk) 06:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I really don’t think where he was employed or what magazines he written for are relevant for notability. Do you have any other sources to share? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin, Even though I believe there's enough on Troy Stetina to warrant a keep, could I ask please that if the consensus eventually leans towards a deletion, you might consider redirecting rather than deleting? There are a number of possibilities. One would be Mark Tremonti who has a historical and ongoing musical association with Stetina. There was already a mention of him there on the page. I have also done a bit more. There's other content that would eventually go in there as per the normal growth of an article. This is regardless of a deletion or not. If in the event of a deletion consideration, that would probably be the best. Perhaps if the Guitar One article was created, that would be another one as Stetina was involved with the magazine for some time as a writer and contributor. Then there could be his brothers Dale and Wayne where a paragraph could be. They're only stubs at the moment. With a re-direct, the history can be preserved which IMO is always a good thing.
    I would like to do more to fix the subject's page as it is a mess. Sadly, my time is limited and I am neglecting other things. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I don't see a consensus yet and different assessments of the existing sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Left-Handed Guitar: The Complete Method by Stetina, Troy No Book authored by Stetina Yes Yes ✘ No
Fretboard Mastery [With CD] by Troy Stetina No Book authored by Stetina Yes Yes ✘ No
Guitar Noise No Stetina is responding to a reader's comment No Appears to be a WP:BLOG No ✘ No
Modern Drummer Issue 166 Yes Yes ~ This is a review of one of Stetina's books. There is no mention/WP:SIGCOV of Stetina at all ~ Partial
Guitar One Magazine February 2006 No Article authored by Stetina Yes No ✘ No
OnMilwaukee Interview No WP:PRIMARY-sourced interview with the subject Yes Yes ✘ No
Metalshockfinland No WP:PRIMARY-sourced interview with the subject No Seems to be a randomWP:SPS Yes ✘ No
Maximum Ink Interview No WP:PRIMARY-sourced interview with the subject ? A non-notable, local music magazine. Can't find editorial polices, editorial board, etc.. The interview also contains a link to Stetina's Wikipedia page at the bottom and links to purchase the subject's CDs. Appears WP:QS and WP:PROMOTIONAL Yes ✘ No
guitariste-metal.fr No WP:PRIMARY-sourced interview with the subject No Appears to be a random WP:SPS Yes ✘ No
Ad in La Seine Musicale No WP:SPONSORED-content by the band No WP:SPONSORED-content by the band Yes ✘ No
The Journal Times Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
Billboard Jan 1995 Yes Yes No Single, passing mention of Stetina of a video he hosted ✘ No
www.ultimate-guitar.com ? Likely a press release No As per WP:MUSIC/SOURCES, Ultimate Guitar is only reliable for “articles written by the "UG Team" or any writer with reliable credentials elsewhere.” This particular reference has no bylined author so it likely a press release/WP:UGC. No ✘ No
Musicradar No Interview with one of Stetina's bandmates Yes ~ ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep as there is enough coverage in total including prose part of interviews, and a review for a narrow pass of WP:GNG. Also Ultimate Guitar is listed as a reliable source at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources although the particular reference is possibly a press release so doesn't help, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Interviews don’t count towards GNG as they are a primary source. Also Ultimate Guitar is only reliable for “articles written by the "UG Team" (list of staff writers) or any writer with reliable credentials elsewhere.” As you stated, the reference is likely a press release. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Dr. Swag Lord, your created document isn't an official guide to follow! Also, it isn't accurate!
  • Actually, the OnMilwaukee Interview that you mention (properly named:"Despite impressive resume, Stetina lacks name recognition at home" By Bobby Tanzilo) is an article-interview combo. The article part is sufficient to support the page.
  • The Maximum Ink Interview (Properly named:"Second Soul
AN INTERVIEW WITH TROY STETINA OF SECOND SOUL" BY MIKE HUBERTY ) is an article and interview combo. The article section is sufficient to support the page
  • The La Seine Musicale wasn't sponsored by the band. If sponsored as you say as per "LSM Newswire is La Scena's Newswire service. Organizations can post a press release on our website for a fee.", which band as you say?? Was it Leo Kottke, Antoine Dufour, Ana Vidovic, or Jonathan Kreisberg?
  • The Metal Shock Finland, October 13, 2011 interview is an interview yes. It has been used around 50 plus times here to reference articles. I'm not putting it forth as a supporter for the page.
  • I'm trying to find the article that goes with this eBay photo of Troy Stetina. The photographer was George P. Koshollek and it is date-stamped FR DEC 5 1986 as per on the back. The cut-out stub says "Roll over, Beethoven. Here comes Troy Stetina" and has -Sentinel photo beside it. Could it be from the Milwaukee Sentinel?

    I even more stand by what I said that Stetina is a notable subject. His being a writer for two of the largest guitar mags in the US as well as holding guitar clinics in events that have internationally known prestigious artists is just one aspect. Many others ... etc. etc. etc. Below is an interesting indicator from Jstor,

  • BOOK CHAPTER
    But That Doesn’t Help Me on Guitar!: Unraveling the Myth of the
    Self-Taught Metal Guitarist
    Kevin EbertFrom: Connecting Metal to Culture: Unity in Disparity, Intellect (2017)
    Edition: 1

    ...and Heavy Metal Lead Guitar Vol. 1&2 by Troy Stetina are two such examples. Also noteworthy is his 1991,
    Speed Mechanics for Lead Guitar In an interview with Guitariste Métal, Stetina was asked about his sales figure
    he replied: Speed Mechanics for Lead Guitar is the biggest seller now. Maybe 300,000...

    Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 04:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories
Table of Contents