Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D Byron

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. Consensus is clearly that no suitable sources exist that would meet our BLP policy, and that notability cannot be demonstrated according to either GNG or MUSICBIO due to the same lack of suitable sources.

Sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry/general tedious bullshittery has, of course, been ignored. Nick (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

D Byron[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

D Byron (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)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Entirely sourced to an interview the artist gave to a teen webzine hosted on Wordpress, and there's no indication at all that the artist has ever done anything notable. I can't find any other sources at all about the artist or his albums. The photo used in the article is the same as the one in the webzine interview, but the SPA editor who created this article claims it as their "own work". Richard3120 (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somethingnewforyoufor (talk • contribs) 19:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Somethingnewforyoufor (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

So in fact you are the author of the only source on the subject. And you have to prove that he is notable, not just say he is. Richard3120 (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it wasn't true, but that doesn't make it notable. Please read WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Richard3120 (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I personally know this article to be true and he is a notable musician. I own his CDs "Turning Off Lights" and "Killing Ants." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollyleichavez (talk • contribs) 23:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC) — Hollyleichavez (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'm not sure how famous you have to be, but his music is in my top 100, so to think he is not notable is crazy to me. I think it's because his name is hard to Google. I figured the page would get added on to later by other people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.27.255.117 (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC) — 50.27.255.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete There is no sign of significant coverage for this person. Also, WP:DUCK and WP:CANVAS. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose/keep I personally know this article to be true and he is a notable musician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronmoh (talk • contribs) 00:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC) — Ronmoh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete - Wow, if you're going to round up friends (real or imaginary) to save the article, you could at least be more creative and have them say different things. This musician has no significant and reliable coverage in the music media as required at the notability rules for musicians, and I am unable to find a single professional review for either of his albums. All he has are streaming links and a few YouTube videos that he probably uploaded himself. The "keep" voters above (or voter, because they may be the same person) are clearly unaware of Wikipedia's notability requirements, and this is not a promotional service. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Blatant promotional and obvious either CANVASING or SOCKPUPPETRY. I also found it funny in checking the reliability of the source, the webzine Teenzine, in the "about us" link, spells the word "article" as "artical." ShelbyMarion (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NM Edigodiuss (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considerations"""" 1. Under Reasons For Deletion: Articles we are not interested in – some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept. (OBVIOUSLY, THIS INTERESTS SOME PEOPLE) 2. Under notability: The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. (IS IT BECAUSE MOST OF THE ARTICLES ABOUT HIM ARE IN PRINT AND NOT ONLINE CAUSE FOR SUCH REACTIONS? I'M SURE YOU COULD TAKE ANY INDIE ARTIST OFF, BUT WHY SO MUCH EFFORT ON THIS? I ACCUSE THE ACCUSERS OF BEING BIAS OR TROLLS.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somethingnewforyoufor (talk • contribs) 02:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Sources do not have to be online - if you can cite print sources from reliable publications, for example established newspapers or music magazines such as Rolling Stone, Billboard or Spin, that would be acceptable... you would just have to provide full details of the citation, such as author, date/issue number and page number, so that other editors can check those sources and verify them. Richard3120 (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And just to expand on what Richard3120 (talk) wrote here, in the course of verifying the sources it's not only a matter of whether such a source can be established as being independent of the subject (or has a third party editorial staff) but the source itself has to stand up to certain professional or at least quasi-professional-but-competent standards. As I mentioned with my "delete" vote previously, when I checked the sources, one of them spells "article" as "artical." The other spells "arrogant" as "aragonant." That kind of sloppy amateurism will sink the reliability of a sources as easily as any other criteria. So by all means add the print sources, but if they suffer the same kind of cheapness, they too will be discounted. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. I ran a Google search and did not find any coverage of him in reliable sources.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 13:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above arguments. There is simply no SIGCOV that would support a notability claim, per either the GNG or WP:MUSIC. Furthermore, I think ShelbyMarion's comments above are quite adequate when it comes to gauging the quality of the sources presented so far, which are extremely poor. PK650 (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Oy Vey, the socking/canvassing is so blatant. Doesn't have the significant coverage necessary to pass WP:GNG and doesn't pass WP:NMUSICIAN. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As a sidenote, I have taken the liberty of opening a Sockpuppet investigation casepage. --Jack Frost (talk) 10:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and nuke all the socks/SPAs. There are 0 sources about this person that would fulfill any notability criteria. Praxidicae (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2020 (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/D_Byron&oldid=954078895"