Talk:Marty Munsch

Birthplace

Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.124.185 (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC) 

Wwwhatsup (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Wwwhatsup (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)  Done

All factual and legit

All factual and legit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.213.90 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

http://photos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v2622/201/117/1539212199/n1539212199_30212387_8195021.jpg

Article reads like a resume/vanity site

WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:NOTE, WP:COI, WP:AUTOBIO, WP:COS :

Marty Munsch (born August 1967) is an American music producer. Munsch was born in Union County, New Jersey, and raised in the towns of Franklin Lakes and Wyckoff in Bergen County, New Jersey. Munsch is the principal owner of Punk Rock Records.(citation needed for all this but I think it's OK for the article for now).

Career: Manager of US Chaos in early '80s Link: http://www.sugarbuzzmagazine.com/bands/uschaos/uschaos.html

Producer on the album Victory Singles Volume 3 for the songs “Down the Drain” and “Parasite” by L.E.S. Stitches. Link: http://www.discogs.com/release/850465

Contributed video to: Punk's Not Dead: The Movie. Link: http://www.punksnotdeadthemovie.com/links.html

Engineer on the T.S.O.L. song “You've Come Undone” for T.S.O.L. Live 2005 CBGB's Live WFMU .Link:http://www.wfmu.org/playlists/shows/17623

SQGibbon (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

SQGibbon (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

SQGibbon (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to edit or discuss

I created a discussion subpage on my talk page User_talk:Xblkx/Marty_Munsch to discuss improvements to this article that I had proposed on 26-Feb-2009 that were simply deleted as vandalism by a user with a dynamic IP address. I am not an experienced editor, so I invite the authors and editors of this article who are more familiar with the subject than I am to respond, discuss, and improve the article and to remove the content that does not meet Wikipedia standards which SQGibbon has invested hours in evaluating. Please do not simply delete the tags challenging the content that does not meet those standards. Xblkx (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I've finished uploading all my research to the subpage. So everyone interested please come take a look and comment, challenge, whatever. SQGibbon (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

New Version

I've copied my heavily edited version over here to be the new one. See the discussion here for the reasoning. Now that we have a clean and decently well-sourced version, adding more information should be easier to track and verify. SQGibbon (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Good job. We'll see. I'll post another note on Marty's page about not deleting talk comments. It would seem according to the below that he is abdicating involvement. So we'll just have to keep the anon's in check. Wwwhatsup (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. we now see Marty aka SOCal9045, having professed indifference as below, attempting to revive the earlier version. diff. Wwwhatsup (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Section

23 March 2010 (UTC)

Section

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pxc3580 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Interestingly enough, I have barely recognized this wiko site and it's wacko's untill a few months ago, Sad as it may be.

I would like to go out of my way and THANK whomever may have contributed to my information no matter how it may be posted. I don't have the time to waste on a encyclopedia that is based upon public consensus.

Preceding unsigned comment added by SOcal9045 (talk • contribs)

The two of you. Please feel free to air your differences, but they should be confined to the content of the article. Please 1) do not delete other people's comments, and 2) sign your comments with 4 tildes. Wwwhatsup (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

To make an additional clarification, "public consensus" and "encyclopedic" are unrelated terms applied to content for differing reasons. Encyclopedic is a standard applied to content. Public consensus is used to reconcile disputes for included content and whether it meets the standards of this website. Xblkx (talk) 04:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Notable credits

I believe this section should also be knocked out. None of the credits in there are particularly notable. I realize this begs the question if Marty Munsch himself is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. I'm willing to let that go, but not if anon IPs continue to add non-notable credits to the list. Wwwhatsup (talk) 22:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's tricky. I never felt these sources were particularly good but they were the best left from the previous version of the article. The Encyclopedia of Punk might be fine but then I don't have a copy so I don't know what it says about Munsch. The films are suspect as well though the "Punk's Not Dead" was on TV (Fuse channel) but then I don't think Munsch was actually in that film as he only contributed video for it. And is the Sugar Buzz magazine even available in print form? So yes, there are problems. That said I'm fine with the article being in Wikipedia but would have a difficult time arguing against a PROD. At least now it's easy to keep the article free from any more non-notable additions and if something good does ever come along then there will be plenty of space to add it in. SQGibbon (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. If it was footage and not a personal appearance I wouldn't describe that as notable. I don't see him listed here. That documentary had dozens of sources, and while everybody is thanked nobody gets a specific credit IIRC.

Wwwhatsup (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore I believe the correct solution, as per WP:AUTO is for MM to list all the credits he wants on his own site, which can be then be accessed via a ref/external link here. Wwwhatsup (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

unsigned comment added by 192.172.8.13 (talk) 17:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not quite how I read WP:AUTO. If I'm reading the same section as you are referencing it states that biographical information from a personal website can be used for general biographical information (with certain caveats). What I get from this is that if Marty were to put some biographical information at his website we might be able to use some of that (in a neutral and non-contentious manner) to flesh out aspects of this article. That would be helpful. The "notable credits" while not terribly notable I think work fine to establish a general sense of notability (which probably doesn't strictly adhere to WP policy but is hopefully good enough). In the end I think the article is fine. It could use some fleshing out particularly in the biographical area but otherwise it's probably as good as it can get based on the sources available. SQGibbon (talk) 06:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I take the points of both comments above. But I believe that the only thing really bad is that the two record credits given are kind of arbitrary. It is the whole body of work in terms of New Jersey punk rock that can be construed as notable, but not any individual piece. Thus I would be very happy if it could read something like "Produced/engineered many records for bands including (2 or 3 names). - and a ref go to some list - similar to the one excised here - on his website. While individual credits might be questionable, the statement is pretty much assurely proven. As far as the infobox goes, I have no problem with it - if he's notable then let it be! The pic could need an WP:OTRS, though. Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you're saying now and I agree. I think keeping some of the references that are in the article now at least establishes some kind of secondary source confirmation (so that future readers won't think the article is just a link to a vanity site). Which is not to say that you advocated removing all of them but I just wanted to be clear on that point. SQGibbon (talk) 07:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the suggestion made by 192.172.8.13, I completely agree that Punk Rock Records article requires an evaluation. I have been meaning to do this but unable to find the time. If anything is relevant there, my opinion is that it belongs merged into this article. Punk Rock Records is just a corporate identity of the subject of this article and not notable apart from that. Back to the original discussion, we have a limited sample set for determining consensus whether this subject is notable. There are lot more editors to the history of this article than people participating in that discussion (not unexpected, considering that IP addresses are dynamically assigned). For the time being, like those of us discussing this, I tend to accept it and err on the side of "as good as it can get based on the sources available." That's acceptable to me. I looked at the sources again and thought about them, and for example, the choice of using US Chaos and the movie contributions as one of the (2 or 3 names) produced/engineered by the subject here; I think this is one of the few subjects referenced that could or do have a reliably sourced, relatively unchallengeable article of its own. I tend to accept those references (and this is admittedly subjective) unless they are challenged. If others in the "credits" feel they are relevant, they can create and source their own articles too. As for the image, I looked at its history, and I see no information at all indicating it is in the public domain other than a declaration by a user who no longer exists. I have seen and edited articles about bands who have actually provided their own publicity and promo photos with release permission, and had them challenged and removed by bots and that I can't prevent or dispute. I do not know what the process is for challenging images or certifying that they are released to the public domain, but I agree. The user who created it and certified it as "own work" and released it no longer exists (how does that occur?). I don't know if it matters. If this should or can be questioned, it is not in my area of expertise. But personally, for the effort we've done to clean this up as an improvement to Wikipedia, I'd rather have a stub-class article here that's factual, non-vanity site and sourced than a deleted article later re-created copied in 4 minutes from someone's PC and have to start all over again with this in a year or two. There are articles about internationally-known subjects that I have neglected improving just to extricate this garbage from Wikipedia, simply because I believe the overall quality of this great resource is better served with the former activity. Xblkx (talk) 05:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There is the established WP:CONSENT process for verifying the status of files. If the status can't be verified the file should be deleted. I would suggest you clean up Punk Rock Records and then propose a merge if you feel one is merited. Wwwhatsup (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Then let's get to it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.153.3 (talk) 01:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Marty Munsch

A tag has been placed on Marty Munsch, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Music

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. 68.193.213.46 (talk) 06:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• This tag has been reverted as vandalism diff. Wwwhatsup (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Marty Munsch and Punk Rock Records

Now that the Punk Rock Records article has been trimmed down to something based on reliable sources it's probably time to merge the articles. Anyone have an opinion about which article should be the main one (assuming they should be merged)? SQGibbon (talk) 06:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I would say merge MM into PRR. I think we can speculate that it is MM himself who has been behind the recent anon attempts to delete the MM article, and that the product is of more interest. Wwwhatsup (talk) 02:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree on all counts. We can wait a few days but I doubt anyone is going to take notice of this so whenever one of us feels the urge we should make the merge. I think some of the notable (so-called) achievements listed on this page were probably done separate from PRR and would need to be listed that way. SQGibbon (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem there. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem either, on the grounds that Marty Munsch's only notability is that he was principal owner of Punk Rock Records. The notability of both (or either), as cited in a reliable source, is in the credits list of the articles. My opinion is that a merge will not degrade the quality of information in either article, and doing so reduces the likelihood of vandalism (which seems to be a problem with these subjects). Less to try to keep up with; more time to spend on articles whose notability has never been challenged. Which article should remain intact and which should be the redirect? Xblkx (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the merger, too. Hekerui (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 67.80.196.39, 27 May 2011

(All) This information is incorrect and should be removed.

67.80.196.39 (talk) 07:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 15:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

New Credits

A bunch of anon edits in the last two days boil down to this - US Chaos involvement was 90s not 80s, and that there was an album made of the T.S.O.L. CBGB recording. No refs to back up either, but not worth reverting IMO. Wwwhatsup (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, the album claim for CBGB recording is not supported by the source. As for the rest of it it's just padding the section. I think the projects he worked on that are not notable (i.e., bands without articles) should be removed as not belonging to the "Notable credits" section. SQGibbon (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Update: I see nothing in the T.S.O.L. article to indicate that "You've Come Undone" was ever released as an album so I'm reverting that and the non-notable credits as mentioned above. SQGibbon (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm with you. Wwwhatsup (talk) 05:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Punk Rock Records be merged into Marty Munsch. There is not enough unique content to make it worth keeping as a standalone article, and Punk Rock Records appears solely to be a vehicle for Munsch's recording activity. Since Munsch is also a photographer, it makes sense to merge in this direction. Wwwhatsup (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I've done it. Wwwhatsup (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Name

Corrections are the true name and birth title of afforementioned person. Marty Munsch was a stage name, Aaron is true first name. 65.40.192.212 (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

That be as it may. Reliable secondary references are needed to change the article. Even so Marty Munsch is the name with a claim to notability, however tenuous. The real name is ancillary information. Wwwhatsup (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should be speedily deleted because... --Lotuspig (talk) 04:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You forgot to include your reason. SQGibbon (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

User:67.80.196.39 added the following to Lotuspig's statement above, I moved it down here "(This Material is not correct or verified anywhere)" .

Things Noted

12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.196.39 (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Place and date of birth

I see today the same IP that has left the informative number above has changed the place and date of birth. I have reverted. Since this information is now contested, perhaps it should be removed altogether. I do see there were earlier reverted edits of the middle name, so perhaps that should go too. Wwwhatsup (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Speedy Deletion March 2013

I see the article has again been proposed for speedy deletion. I am going to remove the notice, but I'm not saying a formal AfD is not warranted. The reason the article is minimal is that various editors have conscientiously pared it down to the reliably sourced info. A little while ago I merged in the companion Punk Rock Records article, via discussion above. It was preferred to merge this way, as Munsch evidently does also engineer/produce and take photographs. So the question also is does Punk Rock Records lack sufficient notability? In Discogs, just one 1996 release is mentioned.[1] but major outlets such as Amazon have a 2010 comp "20 Years Of Punk Rock Records".[2]. I'll go ahead and add those to the article. Wwwhatsup (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't propose this for speedy deletion, but prodded it. The question wasn't--and isn't--the notability of the label, though that may warrant discussion as well--the Discogs listing is not very strong support, and a listing on Amazon is a non-reference, only showing works have reached the marketplace. The issue here is whether Mr. Munsch has received substantial coverage from reliable sources, and after some 6 years that still hasn't been established. I'll restore a template or two up top, and pending the addition of reliable sources that support his notability, suggest AfD as appropriate. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I still feel the article subject is non-notable but haven't had time to work on this in the last year or so. One question I have is if the article is deleted, is all of this discussion lost? Several people, myself included, have diligently worked over a period of years editing this article and provided a factual basis for the edits and merges. It would not be pleasant to revisit all of that work if a new resume/vanity site for engineer/photographer/record producer Munsch were re-created in the future.Xblkx (talk) 06:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Plus ca change

I just compared today's version with my last edit - Mar 16 2013 - and it didn't seem to me anything in the way of well-sourced material had been added. So I have restored to that. I've also gone ahead and removed the birthplace, since that was again contested in the recent bout of anon edits, and is unsourced. Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I have also removed the birthdate, since the year was disputed in the latest round of anon edits. Wwwhatsup (talk) 04:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

noted photographer shows in scranton times NP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nulp1788 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Sourced materialt

Correct and exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.251.134.5 (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2013‎ (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Marty Munsch/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Article is low quality. Reads like resume. Obvious COI. Uncited minimal connection to Strummer - does not merit inclusion in Clash Project. Wwwhatsup (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 06:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 23:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

This article is an ongoing source of self promotion and circular references for over 10 years now. I'm editing out the subject's non-notable business website "flashphotographic.com" which is used as an external link, but simply redirects to the subject's facebook page. Proof that it is self sourced is here in the PDF: [3]

This article seems to be a continued, ongoing attempt to use as a resume. Also removing tag as "American Photographer" (not notable as a photographer). Could this article be protected from editing or nominated for deletion?

Xblkx (talk) 04:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey! Nice catch. I think we've given this enough time to justify itself as an article. The basic requirement for Wikipedia "notability" is that there exists two independent and reliable sources that discuss the subject in sufficient detail. Being mentioned in reliable sources is not itself enough. If someone wants to go through the existing sources and see how significant those mentions are then we could decide whether to bring this up for deletion. SQGibbon (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Mastering

WP:RS or not, is 'mastering' notable enough to warrant inclusion in an article? Wwwhatsup (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

No, it is not notable enough to warrant inclusion in an article. Even the subject's own website (http://www.punkrockrecords.com/) doesn't support notability and has no information. It appears defunct, so the statement of "years active 1982-present" in the infobox does not even seem to be substantiated. I edited the article and removed some of the invalid references (more remain to be removed). Recent edit history indicates this article is continuing to be used as a resume as has been the case for over 10 years now (a recent edit that contained a list of production credits was reverted as vandalism). Most of the references sites appear to be broken or converted into product sales sites.

This article should be deleted or at very least protected from anonymous (IP-based) editing. The subject of this article is not notable. Xblkx (talk) 05:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2022

Nulp1788 (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

You did not place a request.Maria Gemmi (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2024

Incorrect information that was stripped from this article. Rootcause56 (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Ligaturama (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)