[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Che Arthur

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nikto (talk | contribs) at 12:30, 28 January 2013 (→Che Arthur). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Che Arthur

Che Arthur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sorry, but I cannot find a single reliable source to prove that this person passes the guidelines of WP:GNG or WP:BAND. His claim to notability resides in having been a member of Atombombpocketknife, itself of questionable notability--and while he was a member, they didn't release anything on a notable label, as far as I can tell. Note the COI in the article history, and how typical the writing and the links are for such an article. Drmies (talk) 05:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am "this person" and I pass several of the guidelines. a google search reveals http://music.msn.com/music/artist/che-arthur/ http://www.allmusic.com/artist/che-arthur-mn0000773695 http://suicidegirls.com/interviews/2244/Che-Arthur/ http://www.avclub.com/artists/the-che-arthur-three,38271/ http://www.brooklynvegan.com/chicago/2012/01/scott_kelly_pla_1.html -- che — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chearthur (talk • contribs) 06:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 06:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are the big issues with the links you've given. The first two are just links to discography pages on MSN and AllMusic. They do show that you've put out albums independent of the band, but don't show notability in and of themselves. Of the albums you've released, none of them are with the same company and none of the companies are major record labels. So as far as criteria #5 goes for WP:MUSICBIO, you don't pass that one. Interviews are good, but the Brooklyn Vegan article wouldn't really be considered a reliable source even if it was a full article, which it isn't. The AV Club article is decent enough, but someone could argue that it's a listing on the AV Club website rather than an actual review of the band. It's very brief and while I'd count it as a review of the band, someone could also argue that it is a review of the band and not of you independently of this second band you've set up. Achieving notability for a single artist outside of the notability for a band is rather difficult. I'll see what I can find, but these sources aren't enough to show notability for you. I'd also like you to look over WP:COI, as you certainly have a conflict of interest here. It isn't against the rules for you to post and comment about yourself, but there's the definite problem that you'll likely view things as having more weight than they do and see more individual notability then there might otherwise be. I'm not saying that it's impossible for your article to be saved, just that you need to approach this with caution.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. There's some independent coverage out there, some of which could be classed as reliable sources. There's a short biography at Allmusic, alongside two reviews of his albums. There's also another album review at Popmatters. It's not much, but it think it just about scrapes the bar at WP:MUSICBIO when you also take into consideration the sources shown above. The COI issues remain, however. — sparklism hey! 08:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Sparklism. I did a cleanup of the article, removing anything that wasn't immediately verifiable via reliable sources. This decimated much of the article, but what remains now is relatively sourced by the available links. Now as far as his individual notability goes, there are some reviews out there. They're brief, but they're reviews. I've linked to the ones that Sparklism brought up as well as some others that I've pulled up myself. I also linked to a few interviews as well. I agree that Arthur just barely scrapes by when you consider the sources here and his link to Atombombpocketknife. The goal here is to show that he's notable outside of the band and the sources here show that although he didn't spin off into a Beyonce-esque solo career, he's notable enough to pass muster. I would recommend that Arthur goes through one of the WP:MUSIC members or another Wikipedia editor to do any major edits to the article to ensure neutrality and to avoid any big issues of COI.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You should amend your earlier statement that the allmusic link is one of two "just links to discography pages". 86.44.21.11 (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the two links given earlier are just links to discography pages. The specific links in the article are links to the specific articles that have Rovi reviews. The two are very different things when it comes down to it. Providing links to discography pages merely shows that the albums exist.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    http://www.allmusic.com/artist/che-arthur-mn0000773695 ... You do not see the bio by Stewart Mason on this page? 86.44.18.54 (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference here is that ultimately it's considered to be more of a trivial source since it's not really in-depth. It could be argued that the reviews would be trivial as well, but at this point there aren't many standards in place for reviews. Short reviews still count for the most part. When it comes to stuff like the bio page for an artist, that's when stuff like this becomes trivial or otherwise unusable for showing notability. It establishes that Arthur is a singer and that he's done things, but doesn't show notability in and of itself.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure you are quite wrong. The substantive detail (including biographical detail, descriptions of music and qualitative judgement) in the bio consitutes significant coverage & should be used in any good article on the subject. Your description of the link as a trivial listing - "just links to discography pages" - is an obvious mischaracterization. 86.44.19.216 (talk) 08:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Userify I don't see much left here I guess after the clean-up. But there's a few odds and ends to mention. Let me precurse by saying I worked many, many years as a record promoter for Warner Bros-Elektra/Asylum Entertainment and I'm just going to give an industry perspective. The A.V. Club is not a notable or reliable music industry publication - It's made by the Onion, had been a University publication, and has some serious credibility issues regarding retractions and validity of reviews. The Club is at best a mention source, and is not followed for any kind of validity. Allmusic is not a reliable music industry source, it's a mentions/listing. Splendid zine, Suicide Girls, Out Magazine, Morning Call, and Pop Matters are not notable industry magazines or otherwise. Basically, there is no listed mention in any notable publication sources tracked, followed, or considered by the music industry - the references are basically trivial/minor. There are no charted works at all listed - singles, albums, renditions charted by other performers, etc. There are no notable awards - Grammys, Choice, etc. The are no major rotations at media. There are no gold/platinum awards/certifications. There are no major or significant minor label releases. No major music competitions, or Idol-type wins, places, etc. No TV themes, major radio rotations, or national broadcast segments. No ensemble work of two or more independently notable musicians. Not the most prominent representative of a notable style or scene. Just being in a band or releasing a record is, in and of itself, not enough. Maybe another overhaul of the article could introduce something more notable, but from an industry perspective we are a couple cents short of a dollar here save for ambition. However, that does not preclude consideration when something major does happen, but it just is not apparent at this time. Яεñ99 (talk) 10:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I appreciate the insight you have given us, Ren99, but I don't think it's accurate to imply that "sources tracked, followed, or considered by the music industry" are the only ones that can help to establish notability and therefore meet our inclusion guidelines. While I absolutely agree that "just being in a band or releasing a record is...not enough", I think it's harsh to dismiss coverage from Allmusic, The A.V. Club and PopMatters as being "trivial/minor". — sparklism hey! 14:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Billboard is a reliable, respected music industry source. MusicRow is reliable and respected. Rolling Stone & The Village Voice are magazines that we call useful and are widely reviewed and published. Look for publications that are prominent in the industry & that carry the weight of a technical review done by persons proficient in publicity, promotion, and A&R - not a listing source like AllMusic. That's what counts. All the major bands listed above (The Beatles, Alice in Chains, Audioslave, Celine Dion, etc), are all feature artists with major publications/record releases/tours/awards/etc and active reviews of recognized material to a listening/publishing/recording/purchasing audience, not just relative to a listing agency. Make sure your are just debating the points/words, otherwise you are not making a valid argument :) There is nothing wrong with patience for now Яεñ99 (talk) 08:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment #2 User: 86.44.21.11 looks like a WP:Sockpuppet, as their entire contributions consist of this one topic with no other entries attributed and they have since deleted their account, yet they suppose in-depth knowledge of user postings - this act further illegitimizes and undermines their debate. Also, there is another single edit IP User: 86.44.18.54 that looks like a potential WP:Sockpuppet, has been deleted, and has no other contributions other than this article. And...User: 86.44.19.216 has also deleted their account after commenting here, and made only 1 other contribution of ~20 words on 5 June 2009 to the topic Contralto, and is yet another potential WP:Sockpuppet. Of note, User: Chearthur has also deleted their account, leaving a vapor trail in it's place and a concern for yet another WP:Sockpuppet specific to this one topic. Additionally, there is the unresolved WP:COI mentioned above circling this article that runs straight afoul of these other issues. Really, 4 deleted accounts, COI, potential Sockpuppets, and attitude - not to mention the shortfalls and user attacks? I'm probably not the only one to notice, but with all that going on this article needs to be *Deleted... If the closing admin finds the circumstances above as abusive, I might even suggest *SALT, but I'll leave that formality to other folks than me from here. Яεñ99 (talk) 09:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Che_Arthur&oldid=535333626"