Talk:Ultimate Spinach

This article is so poorly written and biased as to be completely useless. NPOV is violated constantly, no citations are given and opinion is offered as fact.

I have edited and corrected some of the lies and half-truths this "expert" wrote. Wonder how fast he will change it back?

Ian Bruce-Douglas, Creator of Ultimate Spinach

Notability / Sources

It is unclear at the moment whether this band passes the notability guideline WP:MUSIC. For example, it would pass if the band has released at least 2 albums on major labels, or on notable indy labels. But currently that does not seem clear to me, the article text is somewhat confusing. A discography section, that notes the labels where albums were released, would be helpful (I have added an empty section).

Also, the article is desperately lacking citation of sources (online or otherwise).

I have replaced the "importance" tag with "notability", and added some other tags. Sorted as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 13:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ian Bruce-Douglas that the article is not very good. Ultimate Spinach deserves a much better and longer article. I wish I had time to write it. Mr Bruce-Douglas exercised honorable restraint by refraining from writing up an expanded article about his own band. I thoroughly disagree with B. Wolterding who isn't sure the band passes notability guidelines. That view is simply uninformed. I suggest a search on the band, which would clear up that issue. The band was on MGM. But it hardly matters what label a band was on. What matters is that the albums are classics which have not only stood the test of time, but have gained appreciation over the years. More generally, I am finding a lot of this kind of uninformed discussion on many subjects in Wikipedia lately, and it worries me. It appears to me that articles are being cited as not notable, and even tagged for possible deletion, by people whose only basis is their own lack of knowledge. It seems as if there is more interest in removing articles than in improving them or learning more about the subjects. This isn't the Wikipedia I used to know. Abstrator (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree about the quality of the article. Not a lot of depth on the personnel and performance aspects of the band. Judging by photos I've seen it appears there were two women in the band at some point. This has been completely ignored in the article. I am not from the Boston area and have extremely limited access to reliable information on the group. It'd be nice if someone could expand this article out.THX1136 (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the "Low-importance" rating

As I've discussed above, this rating is based on the opinion of the uninformed. How can it be removed? Abstrator (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can do that yourself. If others disagree they can revert, after which you can engage them in discussion. What might be helpful is if you could find some good secondary sources that speak to the band's influence, both to their contemporaries, and historically. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible plagiarism?

This article seems to be an almost verbatim lift from the group's bio at last.fm. There is some deviation, but I am uncertain as to whether it is enough to dodge this pitfall. Thoughts?THX1136 (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible racist? and by that i mean actually racist?

I found this Twitter account that claims to be Ian Bruce-Douglas, and it's given me no evidence to believe otherwise. https://twitter.com/AZLBRAX?s=20 Just look at it! what a guy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.33.40 (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible music. Unsuccessful band that never "really" made it. 49.182.47.52 (talk) 01:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]