Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Square (band)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. dbenbenn | talk 22:50, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable group. Only hit for "Red Square" "ian staples" is a Wikipedia mirror. allmusic.com hasn't heard of them either. Niteowlneils 22:33, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete bandity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:52, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible band vanity. Megan1967 00:05, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. DaveTheRed 04:05, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. They existed, not vanity, I wasn't a member. they were part of the Music for Socialism movement and were notable within the late 1970s free improvisation scene. Two of the group went onto form B So gloBal quercus robur 19:06, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Can you provide any evidence that B So Global was notable? Kappa 22:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • The term 'notable' is very subjective for a start, but anyway, [1] proves there is such a group and that they have 2 CD's out. I'm not really sure why this page is a VfD issue, the 'allmusic' arguement is a red herring, they are always inaccurate on anything I've ever looked up, they had a load of total crap about Crass, which led to the old Micheal wars about Pete Wright!. Is wikipedia only about 'well known' (is that what is meant by 'notable'?) bands, or is it more about a documentation of the significant (in some peoples terms at least) yet otherwise forgotten? I guess it's all about who writes history... quercus robur 22:41, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for not meeting the Notability and Music Guidelines. If what quercusrobur claims below is added to the article (and verifiable), specifically regarding being a major part of the Southend-on-Sea scene, then they would meet the guidelines and I would change my vote. Tuf-Kat 05:04, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

What is wikipedia about?

[edit]

To expand my arguement, and maybe become a little over-impassioned about what my vision of wikipedia is all about (but I do believe this is that important), I'm a long term wiki contributor, at one time up there in the 'most contributions' list, now a bit of a recovering wikiholic, and generally a level headed contributor with a strong belief in what wikipedia stands for, and it seems maybe ironic that I'm prepared to make a strong stand over what is 'just' a 'relatively unimportant' stub, but I don't create pages like this (Red Square) and those who celebrate lightly, certainly not for reasons of 'vanity', but because I believe that in certain contexts these groups had/have significance, both within the context of the history of free improvisation and in the former case, a documentation of the music scene of Southend on Sea, UK, where I have always lived.

The 'allmusic' arguement I have already addressed, the 'not many hits on Google' is PRECISELY why it is important that the history of groups like Red Square isn't lost forever. I have a wealth of detail, information and history of 'obscure' groups inside my head, based on experience, gigs attended, gig recordings, people I know/knew, etc etc, much that may well be of use/interest to future academics, historians, archivists, genreally interested people and the like, so do so many of us in all sorts of areas. If/when I die, that will be gone forever. So do we want a 'wikipedia' that just regurgitates what 'allmusic' posits as 'the truth' and 'notable' or do we want a richer tapestry with the gaps filled in?

To use an analogy, one of my principle fields of interest is permaculture and urban land rights issues. Whilst reading Peter Harper's classic book Radical Technology, published in 1972 and totally reflective of it's time, I came accross a mention of a South London based radical urban land rights group called The Urban Farmers, who pulled off various stunts in the late sixties such as planting vegetables in the middle of roads, etc, and also published a 'beautiful and graphically inovative' silk screened magazine. I wanted to know more. Google searches however produced nothing, nor did various email requests on likely groups, although I did get a couple of responses from old hippies who 'vaguely remembered' the urban farmers and their magazine, but couldn't be any more specific. Seems the urban farmers are lost forever. They certanly will be in a further 30 years. However, we now have the tool (Wikipedia) to ensure that such ephemeral but relevant history is documented rather than lost to future generations and researchers, which is why I am so passionate that the memory of groups like Red Square shouldn't be lost just because somebody in Australia (for example), presumably with little interest in the history of free improvisation or music in Southend on Sea, on a whim thinks they 'arn't notable'. Whose to say what is and isn't notable and in what context? So delete away if that is to be the majority decision, but the quality of a so-called 'free encyclopedia' will be greatly diminished as a result as far as I'm concerned, cheers quercus robur 01:12, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. I think I'm convinced by Quercus's argument. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:39, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Google isn't the only source we need to think about. I'm sure some of the other fans of Red Square would also have something to say about them. This is a well constructed article about something in the real world and the article above about its importance speaks for itself. Strong Keep.LukeSurl 20:18, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. QUercus Robur's argument is quite convincing.

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.