Talk:4troops

Pop music Low‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Country music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Country music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to country music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Country musicWikipedia:WikiProject Country musicTemplate:WikiProject Country musicCountry music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comment

... A bit of background on the history of this article stub. Admins beware of deleting articles too quickly, just because you don't know the subject and don't bother to check before you delete!

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4Troops

09:42, 17 July 2010 Davewild (talk | contribs) deleted "4troops" ‎ (A7: Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) Hey Dave. Can you please justify this deletion? I added the page stub after seeing their show on PBS. A Google search for 4Troops returns "only" one Million results. Not enough significance? Wikipedia culture suggests you tread lightly. Creating is difficult, deletion is easy. Err on the side of caution! Chris (Cwagner) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwagner (talk • contribs) 08:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, wikipedia requires that articles on music groups assert in the article why they are important or significant - such as by charting in a recognised chart, coverage in reliable secondary sources or by winning awards. The article as written contained no explanation of why this group was significant so per the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion the article was deleted - wikipedia gets lots of articles created on non-notable music groups every day and so if the article does not show why it should be kept it will be deleted.

You are welcome to recreate the page but it needs to explain why the group meets the WP:MUSIC notability guideline - preferably cited to reliable secondary sources such as newspapers or journals. The number of google hits is not an argument for keeping a page - please see WP:GOOGLEHITS for an explanation of why. Davewild (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a collective effort. People build articles together. So someone may initiate an article with a Start or Stub and then others build on that. Jimmy Wales describes this as "Wiki Magic". You can read about it in my article on Innovative Content Creation. Speedy deletion of an article defies this logic. Further, Speedy Deletion should only happen in cases of an obvious lack of notability. Hence, instead of overzealously deleting, anyone could have done a simple search and would have found the number of Google hits, would have found the report on them on CNN, and on ABC News. They are not the Rolling Stones and I am not a fan of theirs, but they are noteworthy. And I am a Wikipedia supporter and am gravely concerned when its principles are undermined. Also, WP:GOOGLEHITS is an ongoing discussion. It should not be used as an argument to justify deletion (see the article).

Please undelete the 4Troops page. I cannot undelete it as I am not an administrator. (Cwagner)

I have restored the article to your userspace at User:Cwagner/4troops. You can improve it there and/or move it back to main article space (but if it is moved back to mainspace as currently written then it is highly likely to be speedy deleted again by someone else). Davewild (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have recreated the article based on the copy you sent back to me. (Cwagner)

PR Newswire not a reliable source

In this case it is. Cwagner (talk) 03:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Cwagner[reply]

Personally, I think press releases always fall under Self-published sources, and thus almost never count as a reliable source, but I suppose an argument could be made that this meets one of the exceptions for SPS. I don't think it does, but I don't believe that strongly enough to want to revert it into EL. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of co-creation on which Wikipedia is built, feel free to replace the source with a better one. That would be a meaningful contribution. Cwagner (talk) 06:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Cwagner[reply]