User talk:Dayn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you post here, I will reply both on this page, and your page. However, I will not check your page if you reply.

Archives Archive 1

[edit] List of Gothic Rock bands

Just because some don't have articles yet, doesn't mean they won't soon or that they aren't notable. Some of those bands are the sole representative of the genre in their country.. others are notable such as Balaam and the Angel... non are promotional/vanity. There is no policy that says redlinks should be blanked.. Wikipedia is a project to work on and add to. - Deathrocker 09:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

And how does one know which are promotional/vanity? It doesn't matter if some will "become" notable; they're non-notable now. I have a little music project myself; who decides if that will become notable? I've been maintaining many other lists, and removing unverified bands and non-notable ones, and so have many others. Since Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate directory, red links should either be created, or removed. --Dane ^~nya 09:10, 26 ::February 2007 (UTC)

That isn't what I said... where does this "become" your talking about come from? They are already notable and have been around since the 1980s. How do you find out which are notable?... you research them, that is how.

Why should all redlinks on Wikipedia be removed form lists if you say so?... that doesn't make sense. The bands that are notable but don't have articles yet are there for a reason... so people involved with the project who have an interest in the genre can expand on them and create. - Deathrocker 09:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Then why are they not on Wikipedia? What's the point of linking to a non-existent article? --Dane ^~nya 09:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Black Sabbath didn't have an article before 17 February 2002, does that mean on 16 February they weren't a notable band? The project is an endless work in process... removing notable bands, which will be worked on from lists, just so its pleasing to your eye personally isn't how the project works. - Deathrocker 09:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't, Wikipedia was only formed a year earlier, and such a famous band was bound to be created as the project's popularity grew; it's just hard to see these particular articles ever being created. Regardless, I'm interested in making lists useful with information, and I find it hard to consider how something can be judged notable, but continue to exist without an article while still linking to it; makes it hard for others to decide notability, when anyone can add any band as a form of promotion.

I prefer to shoot first, ask questions later; in all my past experience, every band that I've removed which were later readded with an article were deleted for being non-notable, so you can see where I'm coming from. Let's list them at requested articles, so the lists have useful information, instead of littered with dead links, see what happens. I would rather a comprehensive, but useful list, instead of removing bands left right and centre. If they're notable, we'll see if anyone contributes. --Dane ^~nya 09:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Its hard to believe that Balaam And The Angel; a band who have charted in the UK Top 100.. eight times will have an article made? No, not really. Again you seem to be talking from the perspective of somebody who doesn't known about the genre, nor have you reseached (or you'd know the above). - Deathrocker 09:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well of course I don't! I'm aiming to help make Wikipedia the place to research, with verifiable references, so all this wouldn't happen in the first place. I've done Balaam and Ex-Voto at the requested pages, feel free to help. I won't be removing the lists now, because I'll take it on your word that they're notable, which is why I'm listing them now. --Dane ^~nya 09:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)