Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Deeh Pitre

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. Kurykh (talk) 05:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Deeh Pitre[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. WP:BLP of a musician and filmmaker, with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC or WP:CREATIVE and no strong reliable sourcing to get him over WP:GNG. Nearly all of the referencing here is to primary sources and blogs which cannot support notability -- and the few genuinely reliable sources are all parked on one live performance, which just makes him a WP:BLP1E. Outside of that live performance itself, the only other real notability claim here is that he and his music exist, but "he exists" is not what gets a musician a Wikipedia article -- "he can be reliably sourced as passing NMUSIC for something" is, but that's not being shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he's a world famous busker and a lot of links are legit sources (Exclaim, The Canada Winter Games, Festival du Nouveau Cinema and all the Seal coverage). Add his filmmaking and the Elisa Jordana's show (Howard Stern), we have a notable artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.83.98 (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— 174.89.83.98 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The Canada Winter Games and the Festival du nouveau cinema are not media outlets — a person does not get over our notability criteria for those things, if the source for those things is those things' own self-published websites about themselves. Doing music for the Canada Winter Games does not count as notability until media are writing and publishing content about his music for the Canada Winter Games. Appearing on a podcast does not count as notability if the source for that appearance is the podcast itself; it counts as notability only when media start writing and publishing content about his appearance on the podcast. And on and so forth: a person does not get to public-relations or primary source themselves into notability — newspapers and books and magazines and radio and television have to give the notability to him by covering him. And all he's got for real media coverage is "once sang one duet with one singer once", which just makes him a person notable only for a single isolated event. Bearcat (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The London Evening Standard and Niagara Falls Review citations seem to contradict your condescending "once sang one duet with one singer once" quote. They clearly shows this was the genesis of opportunities presented to numerous buskers which garnered worldwide media attention. Seal mentioning this encounter months later in many interviews make this crystal clear.

Kindly note that the London Evening Standard and Niagara Falls Review citations fail to do something very important: actually have Pitre as their subject. Neither one of those citations, in fact, even contains a single solitary mention of his name, let alone actually being about him in any remotely substantive way that would assist notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A multi-million view YouTube duet with a world famous singer is the equivalent to a Top 20 hit these days. Providing music for The Canada Winter Games (with the on-air mention in the video provided) as well as his other accomplishments should be rewarded instead of trivialized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Resealed (talk • contribs) 15:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Resealed (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No number of hits or views or likes or retweets on any social media platform confers an inclusion freebie on a person who isn't the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG. A person can get a billion YouTube hits, and they're still not notable for our purposes until real media start writing about the fact. Bearcat (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This story was covered by every major media outlet and citations seem to have been included to back this fact up. Citations from ABC News and Time Magazine back up that "real" media did indeed write "about" the fact.

The Time citation just mentions Pitre's name in a blurb, and is not about him. The ABC citation is to a YouTube video, which is something that's never permissible at all: the citation must be to ABC's site, never to any user-generated video sharing site reposting ABC's content in violation of ABC's copyright on that content. Pitre has to be the subject of a source, not just have his name glancingly namechecked within a source primarily about someone else, before that source can count as support for notability — and the context of what the source says about him has to actually satisfy an WP:NMUSIC criterion, which nothing here does. Bearcat (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CBC News, CTV News, Global News, Montreal Gazette all make Pitre the "subject". All are major Canadian news outlets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twibalm (talk • contribs) 00:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Journal de Montreal and the Telegraph Journal (to name a couple more) has done lengthy pieces with Jason as a subject. The wiki page is clearly a work in progress and more will be added. Jason was also a notable Canadian adult film director and those sources will be added, for example. On at least two occasions, Seal has publicly said on video that he will collaborate and represent Jason in the near future. To be fair, I can see the non-linear aspect of Jason's career(s) to be a little confusing as his notability switches from national, to local and to international depending on the artistic merits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.83.98 (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Valid points regarding CWG contribution & the "inspiration" with Seal's #streetsongs. This took it beyond "that live performance" and made the artist more than noteworthy considering it helped other buskers make it to major stages around the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.36.201.196 (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— 46.36.201.196 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Entry seems to be properly sourced and can be expanded on. Comments regarding "sang one duet" are beginning to enter the territory of flaming and seem to be against the true spirit of Wikipedia, "WP:BIGDEAL" may need to be reviewed. The use of "once" also is not factual as two performances are cited. The #streetsongs movement also seems properly sourced and make this more than a one-off as it is being presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twibalm (talk • contribs) 00:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Twibalm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete A subject whose credits are non-notable self-produced works. Half the sources are user-contributed sites, social media, blogs, and insignificant music websites. The other half are 17 links to one of two related non-notable events: busking with Seal, and Seal deciding to use buskers for his opening act. Just because something makes the news—even among legitimate news outlets—and goes viral doesn’t make it encyclopedically important. At best, this would merit a small mention on a wikipage for Seal’s tour, re: a novel way of finding opening acts, and even then it wouldn’t be necessary to identify any busker(s) by name. I’m also troubled by multi “keep” arguments from various SPA’s with different IP addresses that disparage any attempt to point out the shortcomings of the “Keep” arguments. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exclaim.ca being referred to as part of the "insignificant music websites" should call for a review of their wikipage. There are ways to have a civil discourse without resorting to such dishonest hyperbole to make a point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twibalm (talk • contribs) 20:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Twibalm, I apologize causing confusion with a general statement about sources rather than characterizing them one by one. I agree there is no need to question the veracity of Exclaim! as a product. My reference to this particular review, however, meant to be understood as “user submitted,” i.e. accepting content from either non-professional contributors and/or those wishing to promote themselves. (see Exclaim’s own guidelines that direct artist how to “Get Coverage”: http://exclaim.ca/contact/getcoveragen). Obviously this is not the case with everything in their publication/website, but the consistency of the coverage on this subject (minus the busking incident) tends to fall in the self-promotion coverage category, something generally the fate of self-produced music that does not have label representation. A final point: you are simply mistaken by asserting this is a non-civil conversation. ShelbyMarion (talk) 23:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BIO1E. I think there's probably also a WP:NOTINHERITED argument to be made given how much of this is driven by Seal's celebrity rather than independent interest in Pitre. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:21, 14 February 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.