Talk:Farewell to Juliet

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 March 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to Brant Hansen.

I placed this article in response to requests for information regarding Farewell to Juliet by users who had initially visited Wikipedia for information regarding Brant Hansen or Jeff Elbel. The Brant Hansen page contained an empty reference to Farewell to Juliet, so Wikipedia users hit a dead end at that link. The Jeff Elbel page also contained empty links to Farewell to Juliet. A very simple entry was made for Farewell to Juliet containing basic information.

The tag which contests the page's "neutral point of view" is noted. My belief is that the page was originally quite neutral, offering neither praise nor derision - only a description. That page was speedily deleted, with the stated explanation that there had been no statement regarding why Farewell to Juliet was "notable" and merited an entry.

So, in an effort to satisfy Wikipedia guidelines, the second line was added which explicitly states: "Notably, Farewell to Juliet was the first project to bring national attention to American radio personality Brant Hansen (vocalist) and record producer/Chicago Sun-Times journalist Jeff Elbel (guitarist)." This statement was not intended to express bias. It was intended to respond to the required description of "notability."

I have removed the "reference" tag since the article contains four references, the first three being to third-party media sources. The fourth reference quotes the band's website.

I have removed the "orphan" tag, since the article was originally created as a response to two other Wikipedia articles which reference Farewell to Juliet. These two articles are the individual entries for Brant Hansen and Jeff Elbel.

I anticipate that other registered Wikipedia users shall modify the content of this page shortly.

Marathon (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest

If a Wikipedia mod reads this page, could he or she please advise regarding steps I (or someone else) could take in order to justify removal of the conflict of interest tag? I made statements regarding neutral point of view in the discussion above.

Marathon (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This might become a moot point if the pages gets deleted, but I think that I have added enough third-party sources to justify removal of said tag.

Arfp (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The COI tag refers to the author(s), it has nothing to do with the sources you add. Even if you had a perfectly well sourced article, there would still be a COI problem. That said, again, COI is never grounds for deletion or anything else. §FreeRangeFrog 04:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valid point, I probably have much to learn from you freerangefrog. In your experience, would it be reasonable to remove the COI tag if I substantially change the article, replacing much of what Marathon posted and caused the COI? Arfp (talk) 05:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about that, I have a big ol' "Don't follow me, I'm lost" sign taped to my back :) The COI tag is normally a cleanup sign. It says "this article might not be written from a neutral point of view because some people editing it have a stake on its content". If the article is clearly WP:NPOV then the tag can be removed. Articles that end up on AfD usually get tagged with COI if merited, I suppose as a way to let people know that they need to look a bit closer when offering up a keep/delete opinion. §FreeRangeFrog 05:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion tags: Speedy, proposed

I added a hangon tag to this article because as far as I can tell it does not violate the terms of NPOV. Even though it appears the bulk of the data was entered by user Marathon (presumably from the record label of FTJ) there is nothing that constitutes bias. Additionally, it seems ridiculous to challenge the notability of a band whose members include a now syndicated radio host and a reasonably well known musician, producer, and published journalist.

Arfp (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that this article is not a candidate for speedy or [[WP:PROD}proposed]] deletion. Any further proposals to delete this article should be conducted under the AFD process. --Richard (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for adding the wrong tag to prevent deletion. I am a longtime user of wikipedia but new to editing. I now see that the hangon tag is for speedy deletion. Being a new user I didn't want to overstep and remove the NPOV and notability tags without some discussion, but I wanted to make sure that this article doesn't get deleted without appropriate discussion. Can the users who added these tags explain why they think this article is biased or on what basis they claim this band is not notable?

Arfp (talk) 10:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has continued at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Farewell_to_Juliet

Arfp (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arfp, you did nothing wrong in adding the hangon tag. Richardshusr was telling freerange frog that he used the wrong format. FingersOnRoids 01:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]