Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Raitiere

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There is no clear consensus here. I close it without prejudice towards a speedy renomination -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Following a request to re-evaluate my close, I have now done so. Taking into account the co-workers involved here, which would count as one single person (see WP:COWORKER), and the SPAs, the consensus is in fact to delete the article, as there is insufficient evidence that the subjects meets the notability criteria -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Raitiere

[edit]
Aaron Raitiere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Muscial performer who is published by his own label, has not won competitions, received widespread critical coverage, or otherwise met WP:MUSIC. It appears that article was created by an editor who is a member of the subject's undergraduate fraternity. Racepacket (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Seven (7) day review period as per Deletion review ends at 17:34, November 2, 2010.--Cmagha (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the purpose of this note is. The admins/editors who close AfDs all know about the seven day period. However, nominations can be relisted (i.e. the discussion period extended) if the closing editor believes that more time would be likely to generate a clearer consensus.[1]. Is that what you meant? Voceditenore (talk) 11:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These sources are sufficient to prove threshold notability. While some of the sources are non-traditional media, they come within Wikipedia guidelines for sourcing. With respect to Racepacket’s allegations of editor conflict of interest, Racepacket ought to be careful. The Cornell WikiProject page lists Racepacket as a former member of the Cornell University Board of Trustees, Class of 1973. Is this article not within the Board of Trustees guidelines for suitable identification with the University? Does techno music, blue grass music and horror fiction somehow convey an image the Cornell Board of Trustees would rather not present? How can we tell Racepacket is not conflicted in his or her initiation of an AfD. Indeed, who from the Cornell community is talking with Racepacket, guiding Racepacket’s actions. The article is neutral in its writing and the sourcing confirms notability. And what about Racepacket’s articles, many of which are on Cornell topics? Are those conflicted if this one is? Wehatweet (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC) — Wehatweet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I am so busy taking secret orders from the Trilateral Commission that I do not have time left over to follow secret orders from Cornell's Board of Trustees about individual wikipedia deletion debates about secret society members. Racepacket (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, the Murfeesboro Pulse is a print publication. (See [2]) and its reviews appear to be written by its staff, not its readers. However, the remainder of the "references" are trivial and/or not from reliable sources. Thus the coverage remains both very small and very local. Voceditenore (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, but the Murfeesboro Pulse reference is not a in-depth review. Racepacket (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The two reviews are about as in-depth as you normally get in print publications. I don't see that as a problem. However, as I said below, 2 reviews in a small local publication are not sufficient in my view, although others may take a different line on this. Voceditenore (talk) 07:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The misstating of the standard is disappointing. It has been represented as far more rigid than it actually is stated in the Wikipedia guidelines. See Notability, which states, “Many who spend significant time improving Wikipedia's musical coverage feel that notability is required for a musical topic (such as a band or musical theatre group) to deserve an encyclopedia article. Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept.” Accordingly, based on the article count I make and the need for ‘multiple’ sources, I vote to keep.Tea36 (talk) 01:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)— Tea36 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Under that logic, any kid with a garage band can have an article. Why is this person notable? He doesn'e seem to meet even one of the 12 criterium listed at WP:Music. Further, with lack of multiple independent sources the subject fails WP:N.4meter4 (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ Tea36 The "article count" you are basing your "keep" on is not a count of articles devoted to the subject, merely a count of the number of websites that mention his name, no matter now trivially. My real name appears on over 8000 websites. So what? If you are proposing that widely accepted guidelines should be completely ignored in this case, you will need to come up with a better argument than that. Voceditenore (talk) 09:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although additional references have been added, they do not offer substantial coverage of this artist, merely reflecting the fact that the performer is touring. Notability has yet to be established. Racepacket (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article meets notability criteria Nos. 1 & 8. This caught me by surprise, as I thought “multiple” would be six or seven. Turns out, “multiple” just means more than one. Amazing what you learn as a Wiki Defender. With respect to No. 1, there are 10 relevant cites, 7 of which contain more than scheduling information. Scheduling information accompanying by an editor or reviewer’s choice is non-trivial. These articles are therefore from multiple reliable non-trivial published works independent of the musician. Use of press release in one instance is merely to show touring in Upstate New York. Meets No. 8 because he took honorable mention in the International Song Contest, which required nomination. Glad to see conflict of interest is properly not an issue in this article. But why is the allegation not struck in Racepacket’s opening allegation? Lebowski 666 (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete But delete all the same. Two reviews in a local publication do not in my view allow the subject to pass on criteria 1. of WP:MUSIC, although some editors who also regularly participate in AfDs may take a different view. Nor does the subject pass criteria 8. ("Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.". Raitiere may have been nominated (by someone unspecified) to participate in the songwriting competition, but it is not an award in that sense. Note also that for the Pulitzer Prize, anyone including the persons/newspapers themselves can nominate a person or newspaper for a Prize. What counts are the jury's decisions of who the final nominees five nominees are. If anything, 9. ("Has won or placed in a major music competition.") would be relevant. But an "honorable mention" is not won or placed.

    Lebowski 666, I'm afraid simple schedule announcements even accompanied by "editor's choice" (and not all the ones cited are even that) is still trivial. And to both you and Tea36, conflict of interest in the article's creators and editors is not germane to whether the subject mets the critera for inclusion. But conflict of interest/close relationship when !voting in an AfD discussion is germane, as was pointed out to both of you [3] [4] after this sockpuppet investigation. Voceditenore (talk) 06:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Sources show notability. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reviewing the criteria for retention, notability is achieved by a minimum of two secondary sources. This subject was an honorary mention in the International Song Competition and has been the subject of interest in regional arts print media. The Murfreesboro Pulse surveys country, western and folk musicians in an area of the country known for producing this genre of music. Supporting these two secondary sources is a listing of original works, which strongly reinforce notability.Reviewing the criteria for retention, notability is achieved by a minimum of two secondary sources. We ask whether the sources are sufficiently reliable so as to be independent, and if so, are there enough sources to establish ‘notability.’ Reliability is assessed through three criteria: (1) the nature of the work; (2) the creator; and (3) the publisher. These three indicia are also assessed in the context of the article’s subject. With respect to notability itself, we look to three different criteria: (1) significance not requiring original research (2) reliability; (3) secondary sourcing; and (4) independence. Significant coverage does not require the article to hold the subject as the main topic of the work. Reliability itself requires verifiable citations; sources may be published works in all forms and media. In additional, musicians fall under notability guidelines specific to their art, but “ failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept.” This discussion has presented standards as absolute, which are not – in fact – so rigid.The context framing this article subject is the country music genre, its venues and its supporting institutions. These are hard subjects to document, in part, due to the preference of this community for oral/aural and electronic communications. With respect to reliability, the song competition and the Murfreesboro Pulse are acknowledge sources reviewing this genre; the subject of their coverage is a competing and performing musician leaving a record through established tours; the organizer of the competition and the publisher of the Murfreesboro Pulse are established in this genre. With respect to notability, the coverage is signficant enough so as to not require original research; the links are provided. Reliability is established, see above. The sourcing is secondary, independent of the subject. ‘Keep’. Cmagha (talk) 11:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note Lebowski 666 does not have an affiilation to the fraternity [5], only to the article's creator, Cmagha. [6] Voceditenore (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coldplay3332, you have cross-posted the above from AN/I. You will find the responses to your query there, including a reminder of the advice an adminstrator gave you here. Voceditenore (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC) updated Voceditenore (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aaron_Raitiere&oldid=1137533425"