21:
47:
I placed this article in response to requests for information regarding
Farewell to Juliet by users who had initially visited Knowledge (XXG) for information regarding Brant Hansen or Jeff Elbel. The Brant Hansen page contained an empty reference to Farewell to Juliet, so Knowledge (XXG) users hit a
51:
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
55:
So, in an effort to satisfy
Knowledge (XXG) 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
225:
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
153:
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
87:
If a
Knowledge (XXG) 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.
62:
I have removed the "orphan" tag, since the article was originally created as a response to two other
Knowledge (XXG) articles which reference Farewell to Juliet. These two articles are the individual entries for Brant Hansen and Jeff Elbel.
121:
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.
137:
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?
226:
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?
158:
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.
187:. 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.
59:
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.
48:
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.
243:
31:
183:. 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
104:
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.
56:(guitarist)." This statement was not intended to express bias. It was intended to respond to the required description of "notability."
27:
216:
66:
I anticipate that other registered
Knowledge (XXG) users shall modify the content of this page shortly.
20:
266:
261:
Arfp, you did nothing wrong in adding the hangon tag. Richardshusr was telling freerange frog that
179:
I added a hangon tag to this article because as far as I can tell it does not violate the terms of
91:
69:
162:
125:
95:
73:
212:
155:
208:
207:
or ] deletion. Any further proposals to delete this article should be conducted under the
204:
252:
233:
194:
143:
111:
37:
276:
256:
248:
237:
229:
220:
198:
190:
168:
147:
139:
131:
115:
107:
99:
77:
184:
180:
15:
203:
It is clear that this article is not a candidate for
52:to Juliet was "notable" and merited an entry.
8:
244:WP:Articles_for_deletion/Farewell_to_Juliet
30:on 6 March 2009 (UTC). The result of
7:
14:
242:This discussion has continued at
19:
175:Deletion tags: Speedy, proposed
26:This article was nominated for
1:
292:
277:01:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
257:23:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
238:10:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
221:01:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
199:23:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
169:05:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
148:05:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
132:04:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
116:02:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
100:22:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
78:00:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
265:used the wrong format.
83:Conflict of Interest
45:
44:
283:
273:
269:
167:
165:
130:
128:
23:
16:
291:
290:
286:
285:
284:
282:
281:
280:
271:
267:
177:
163:
160:
126:
123:
85:
12:
11:
5:
289:
287:
176:
173:
172:
171:
135:
134:
84:
81:
43:
42:
32:the discussion
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
288:
279:
278:
275:
274:
264:
259:
258:
254:
250:
246:
245:
240:
239:
235:
231:
227:
223:
222:
218:
214:
210:
206:
201:
200:
196:
192:
188:
186:
182:
174:
170:
166:
164:FreeRangeFrog
157:
152:
151:
150:
149:
145:
141:
133:
129:
127:FreeRangeFrog
120:
119:
118:
117:
113:
109:
105:
102:
101:
97:
93:
89:
82:
80:
79:
75:
71:
67:
64:
60:
57:
53:
49:
40:
39:
33:
29:
25:
22:
18:
17:
270:
262:
260:
247:
241:
228:
224:
202:
189:
178:
136:
106:
103:
90:
86:
68:
65:
61:
58:
54:
50:
46:
38:Brant Hansen
35:
211:process. --
268:FingersOn
36:merge to
92:Marathon
70:Marathon
28:deletion
213:Richard
156:WP:NPOV
205:speedy
272:Roids
253:talk
249:Arfp
234:talk
230:Arfp
217:talk
195:talk
191:Arfp
185:bias
181:NPOV
144:talk
140:Arfp
112:talk
108:Arfp
96:talk
74:talk
34:was
209:AFD
263:he
255:)
236:)
219:)
197:)
146:)
114:)
98:)
76:)
251:(
232:(
215:(
193:(
161:§
142:(
124:§
110:(
94:(
72:(
41:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
