Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Castle (2nd nomination)

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. Fram (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Castle[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jeremy Castle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Seems to be non-notable, also huge COI. asenine t/c\r (fc: f2abr04) 19:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A few claims here and there, still nothing that meets WP:MUSIC. Definite WP:COI as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:MUSIC. Comment: last nomination for deletion appears to have been decided on a strict vote basis, even though several of the entries were by editors who apparently joined Wiki simply for the purpose of commenting on this deletion. Many of the more recent edits to this article were also made by these Single Purpose Accounts. TheMindsEye (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article meets all guidelines and is factual in all aspects. There is no good reason to delete it. If those members would like to edit it, they should. There is no need for removal. There seems to be no reason to remove it. "Minds eye" seems to speculate on why members join wiki. Members have edited this article several times in order to get it where it stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayflower18 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC) — Mayflower18 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Note to closing admin: Those two accounts are single purpose accounts. There are also no sources for this guy. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to admin: TenPoundHammer and Minds eye are single purpose accounts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.102.51 (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their single purpose is to spend all their time on wiki trying to delete articles without reason. If you dislike the article, edit it. There are indeed sources on this artist including original recordings of copywritten songs the artist has written and registered through BMI, videos of live performances, articles, music distributions, fansites, music sites, and mp3 availability of all tracks. The artist also receives airplay nation wide and in other countries. There artist is legit, respected, and noted. Articles can't be deleted because you personally don't like their music or musician for some reason. This seems to be the case. You haven't taken the time to listen. This is an actual famous country singer who is originally from Oklahoma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.102.51 (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not deletion for no reason if the article is not encyclopedic or meeting our standards of what wiki requires in an article. In that case (don't know if this is one as I've only really read your comment) that's deletion for very good reasons. As to improving an article, there's only so far this can be done if the article has few WP:RS or none. Plus, I'm sure they do some other stuff. And TPH is not that mad for deletion in all cases, IMHO (I don't know Mind's eye's work but imagine likewise.) Whenever I've asked on his talk page if an article I've seen should be deleted, TPH usually considers it fairly rather than harshly. Merkin's mum 01:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A look at the subject's official web site suggests that he has not yet achieved notability per WP:MUSIC. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Metropolitan90 has again given an opinion-based comment by stating one can determine notability by personal opinion of a website. Many figures with "notibility" don't have websites at all. Metro90 would really be confused to learn that and is not so wise or qualified enough to make such comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.102.51 (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • His comment is not based on opinion; it's based on the notability guidelines as established by WP:N, which is a guideline that (at least 99.9% of the time) must be met for an article to stay on Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have looked at the website and looked up the artist. I have researched the artist found that he has achieved notibility through both his music as a country artist and Oklahoma songwriter/singer. He has music released that have received airplay. The article may need some revision, but should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandyowen (talk • contribs) 15:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC) — Sandyowen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Guess what? Another single purpose account. How has he achieved notability? He hasn't had a chart single or major label albums, and no reliable third party sources have written about him. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now thirdgrade hammer is determinining what record labels are acceptable or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.102.51 (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears that TenPoundHammer is incorrect on unreliable third party sources. Referenced is George Lang, Associated Press writer and respected critic in the field of music entertaiment. He is a very credible source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.102.51 (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC) — 98.160.102.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Yes, I realize that. However, most of the sources aren't cited properly (see WP:CITE) and only one really seems to be substantial. Also, the coverage is highly locallized in nature (i.e., it indicates only a minor notability within his region and very little beyond that.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily think it is so localized. I believe it focuses on the artist and his roots. All artist articles mention where they are from and how they got started. I know his music is popular all over the country. He is actually very talented and more well-known than what I believe you are aware of. Locality of Pearl Harber is localized to Hawaii, but it's influence it much broader than that. The same holds true of the music artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandyowen (talk • contribs) 22:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article doesn't prove that notability however. There are millions of artists who get nationwide play but never amount to anything really big. Also, the sources cited seem to fall under "Other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves". If you can come up with something else to improve the article instead of merely defending it blindly, then please do so. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep People from New Zealand are even believing they experts on American music? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.102.51 (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Keep This article has been discussed and was redone to include sources in the past. The references are fine. The sources are fine and all who are opposed are doing so on personal opinion and ignoring that the article is referenced. It meets wikipedia standards and is fine. This is a well-known singer and songwriter in the United States. This artist is appreciated also by college alma maters and hometown and state he grew up in. None of the people opposing this article have done research on this artists music. Deleting this would be a mistake. Improvement of the article is the only thing I see that might possibly be discussed, but since it has references that are fine, this is not even something one should debate. Leave the article alone and quit debating. BillyJones1947 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billyjones1947 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC) — Billyjones1947 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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/Jeremy_Castle_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1148693281"