Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beau Davidson

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 delete.

I said most of what is relevant re. canvassing and SPA editors when I relisted the discussion, so I'll try to make it short. Fortunately, after relisting, discussion of the provided sources ensued with consensus being that their coverage is either not substantial or independent enough to meet the threshold of either WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. With no more sources mentioned, the only possibly outcome was deletion.

Regards SoWhy 06:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beau Davidson[edit]

Beau Davidson (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)

This article was originally accepted at WP:AFC in 2010 apparently with some COI involvement. The acceptance may have been a dis-service to the subject of the article, as the subject does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. The subject did have their 15 minutes of fame performing for Donald Trump, however this is not sufficient to establish notability despite some coverage of the performance and of Trump's reaction to it. The slew of largely self-published or IMDB sources in the article as originally accepted have not expanded to include significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. In addition, the article -- and its talk page -- have become a battleground between a number of unregistered accounts and WP:SPA accounts. Some of them appear to be detractors of the subject, and some of them are alleged to be the subject or to represent the subject. Some of the latter have also made allegations on the article talk page about named individuals that they claim are responsible for the negative editing. Although such contentious editing is not in itself a sufficient reason for deletion, in cases where notability is not established or is unclear, it contributes to the argument for deletion because Wikipedia should not be further risking unnecessary harm to the BLP (or to anyone else). The article has been protected twice for BLP violations. MPS1992 (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In the news for single event, but as pointed out above, there are multiple inaugural balls, not all necessarily attended by the president (and lets be honest: the news coverage for these particular series of balls indicates it was difficult to put together a line-up. Any performer who agreed to participate invariably was rewarded with press coverage beyond what other inaugural ball line-ups would receive.) Otherwise, the provided references make claims that are hard to be backed up owing to faulty links. Efforts to find them on my own were unsuccessful. I find nothing about this subject on the Emmy's website's list of past nominees; most likely this was a local market nomination, which is not the same for wikipedia notability purpose. And even then I can't find a significant independent, third party source. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the notability objections I made on the talk page. GringisMan (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
— 98.240.15.40 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Note to closing admin: 98.240.15.40 (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed.
Comment The Emmy Nashville source actually mentions a regional nomination rather than a national one, and thus fails WP:RS. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there a policy on whether or not subjects of articles can weigh in on whether or not the articles should be deleted? Lovetoolistentocountry (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cannot see any way he meets the musician notability guidelines, just one simple moment of fame CaribbeanTruth (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that CaribbeanTruth (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
— 2601:18D:4700:1DE8:715B:1EDA:FD7D:5C28 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 2601:18D:4700:1DE8:715B:1EDA:FD7D:5C28 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
  • Delete What's crazy is that the subject of this article has been personally running interference to prevent any "positive" coverage from being expunged, and from anything remotely negative -- even objectively sourced material -- from being included in the post. It seems clear this is a self-promotional article and does not abide by Wikipedia standards. 73.238.84.249 (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
— 73.238.84.249 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 73.238.84.249 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
  • Note to closer: A journalist who has reported on this subject negatively has mentioned this AfD on Twitter, so recent IP !votes are likely related to that canvassing. Please be careful to weigh policy arguments, not numbers. ~ Rob13Talk 15:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: Just want to note that the subject of the article is also posting about his Wikipedia page and fighting "trolls" on it. The most recent "Keep" vote above, flagged for being an IP address with "few or no other edits outside this topic" is almost certainly the subject of the article in question, and should also be considered when counting votes and considering his input. Thanks 2601:18D:4700:1DE8:715B:1EDA:FD7D:5C28 (talk) 16:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These posts made by the subject were the direct cause of the journalist's tweet. See the thread I started on BU Rob13's talk page. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of who started it, canvassed !votes from either side should be discarded and strength of arguments should be considered. That's all I'm saying. ~ Rob13Talk 16:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I completely agree. Just wanted to note that the journalist who tweeted was responding to an initial tweet by the subject of the article, so it's likely both sides have votes that may require scrutiny 2601:18D:4700:1DE8:15D7:EE19:BC75:F2B7 (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • even if you don't count the votes from editors with few contributions/IP addresses (and I include myself in the former) the vote is still in favor of deletion by a decent margin. When will a decision be made? Lovetoolistentocountry (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have considered closing this AFD for almost half an hour now, reading and re-reading the discussion. While it feels like a clear delete outcome, too many comments on both sides actually lack policy- and guideline-based rationales. Both sides, not only the potentially canvassed SPA accounts, should remember that this is a discussion, not a vote and especially what arguments to avoid in such a discussion. Arguments like "Enough coverage" (without demonstrating it) are as unhelpful as "Just not notable". Other non-arguments include "Created by the subject", "Why is the subject allowed to participate?" and "The numbers are in favor of deletion".

For further discussion, editors should also remember that not meeting WP:MUSICBIO does not make the subject automatically non-notable if WP:GNG is met. TonyTheTiger has pointed out some sources which have not been discussed by others. So if you wish to sway the discussion in a certain direction, do so by providing rational arguments.

The decision will be made, to answer the last question, when consensus has emerged but that requires people actually discussing whether the sources might be sufficient to establish notability under any guideline, not just WP:MUSICBIO.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's clear that my opinion is not welcome nor worth much consideration here, but if you look at his entry as it currently stands, he was in two plays and went to school. I don't see how that, in any universe, makes him notable enough for inclusion. It's amazing to me that we are now going to spend at even more time debating if this random guy's self-created entry should stay up. As I have stated before, his performance was at an UNOFFICIAL inaugural ball, and there aren't Wikipedia pages for the other musical acts (DJ Freedom, The Reagan Years, The Mixx) that played it too. We don't have a Wikipedia page for the one of the other two hosts in that Miss Virginia pageant (Tiffany Haas, Miss Ohio 2002), so that wouldn't appear to be a high enough bar for inclusion. As many have already stated, his performance for Donald Trump (which Trump didn't ask for and was apparently surprised by) is the most notable thing he's done, and it was not covered in a positive light. If you do decide that he's notable enough to have his own entry, that will have to be mentioned. So an obscure musician's Wikipedia entry will basically be about how he performed for Trump at the request of a local branch of the Republican party and that performance was universally panned. Lovetoolistentocountry (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been made aware that my argument might have been too weak for consensus, and therefore, will add that the sources are also not enough to meet the requirements set by WP:GNG. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I was staying out of this, but I just looked at Tony's sources, and they moved me to participate. The Miss Virginia thing is a brief mention, so it isn't "substantial" in the sense of GNG. This is substantial coverage, but it's only in a local newspaper. A local newspaper covering a local artist isn't worth much; it's the type of human interest thing that's covered just to say "Look what people from this area are doing!". I'd want to see at least regional coverage of that sort of thing to factor it into GNG in a significant way. This flirts the line with substantial, but I think it falls short; he's basically in a straight-up list with "quick facts" about inaugural performers. That suggests the notable thing is the inauguration, and he's just associated. The article isn't about him. This is comprised almost entirely of quotes from Davidson, and so it isn't particularly independent. Further, it seems clear this is only being covered due to the association with Trump, a very notable figure. I'm not seeing significant coverage of Davidson as a notable individual separate from Trump anywhere in these sources. ~ Rob13Talk 18:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on one source. I’ve already weighed in as a delete, but with this re-listing I think I could clarify the nature of the much cited Emmy nomination for the benefit of editors trying to gauge the importance of this subject’s nomination in relation to wikipedia notability. According to the source cited in this thread, his name was among a list of nominees from the Nashville TN market’s submission to the MidSouth Chapter of the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, which encompasses any broadcast member station in Tennessee, North Carolina and Alabama. The Nashville list comprises 9 pages worth of names. I counted (yes, I really counted) 140 names on page 1. If we generously assume the other eight pages list an equal number of names, there are over 1000 people “nominated” from a single market. Add that to the probable numbers from the rest of the broadcast markets in the MidSouthChapter, then add it to all the other national regional chapters it’s fair to assume there are tens of thousands of people every year who can claim to be Emmy nominated. He is one among those tens of thousand. Maybe that’s good for including on a resume or LinkedIn profile, but as justification for an entry in an encyclopedia? Just to win one of these locale categories (which this subject didn’t do) is far, far from the same thing as being associated with what we think of as Emmy Winner’s per the National Awards. ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this going to be over and done with tomorrow? It's dragged on for weeks now and doesn't seem like it should be that difficult of a decision one way or the other. Lovetoolistentocountry (talk) 01:58, 27 July 2017 (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/Beau_Davidson&oldid=1137603274"