Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jolyon Dixon

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. Already relisted three times and not really closer to consensus here. Basically there is a debate as to whether the sources provided cause the subject to pass the broad notability guideline and I don't see consensus either way since there seems to be agreement that this is a marginal case. Jolyondixon, the article subject, suggests he might pass criteria 6 of WP:MUSICBIO which could be true but isn't really something addressed by other participants. Defaulting to keep for now, but notability could be revisited at a later date via AfD or a merge, as Noleander alludes to. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jolyon Dixon[edit]

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

This article is a biography of a living musician that fails to establish notability. There's a lot of name-dropping in the article. He's worked with a lot of notable people but notability is not inherited. I can find no significant coverage about him in reliable sources. Whpq (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I've added a couple of sources. He's been a member of several notable musicians' bands, and while more significant coverage would help, he's at least borderline notable.--Michig (talk) 07:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hi there.. just added some more citations and info.. hope i dont get deleted- all the best ,Jolyondixon (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC) having researched wikipedia's policies further, and in accordance with some of the new citaions i have added, (namely the endorsements of musical equipment) I would argue My "notability" based on Wikipedia:Notability(music)- criteria for musicians and ensembles, part 1, note 3 -"Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.[note 3]^ For example, endorsement deal publicity (including sell sheets, promo posters, fliers, print advertising and links to an official company website) that lists the artist as an endorser or contains an "endorsement interview" with the artist." i have added links to 3 manufacturers websites, containing endorsement pictures and qoutes from myself, and one of those is a full interview (Roland U.K) and also part 6 -"Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles."- given that i have been a member of several independently notable ensembles.. many thanks.. Jolyondixon (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC) i'd also like to point out that i did not create the page originally, but i am very proud to have it! Jolyondixon (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keephas plenty of reliable references. –BuickCenturyDriver 02:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Plenty? It's very thin and I'm not convinced they are reliable. -- Whpq (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The notability guidelines for musicians are described in WP:MUSICBIO. My reading of the article doesnt reveal that the subject meets any of the dozen criteria listed there. Maybe another editor can go through that list (there are 12 ways to be notable) and see if one applies. Being a musician on an important album, the guideline suggests, merely means that the musician should be mentioned in the article about that album - but it does not guarantee a dedicated article. The article does include about a dozen citations, each of which mention the artist, but often in a tangential way ... I'm not seeing and independent sources that focus on the artist, and demonstrate that the artist is especially noteworthy. --Noleander (talk) 06:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
again, clearly does meet one of the requirements at least ofWP:MUSICBIO..criteria for musicians and ensembles.. point 1. dot 3 (and note 3) , where it states that" Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.[note 3]^ For example, endorsement deal publicity (including sell sheets, promo posters, fliers, print advertising and links to an official company website) that lists the artist as an endorser or contains an "endorsement interview" with the artist."- the link in the references section labelled "interview with amy macdonald"- not by me- is in fact a whole page interview with myself... i have re- labelled the link accordingly...i'm only pointing out that it absolutely fulfills at least one of the requirements..Jolyondixon (talk) 07:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The earliest version of the article had no independent refs proving WP:N Now, the inserted refs support it. --Yamsahh (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS and WP:INDY. The only source that appears to be at all substantial (the Roland UK interview) is by a company that makes musical instruments, so I'm not convinced of its independence. Richwales (talk · contribs) 01:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Can we talk more about sources, please? Aaron Brenneman (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the only truly independent sources are by Z100 and the Litchfield County Times (WP:INDY is an essay; there is no policy dictating that local newspapers aren't independently reliable.), most of the remaining web sources seem to meet WP:SPS because they are official websites already notable subjects. This means the creators of these websites are already experts in the relevant field, e.g. Amy Macdonald, Judie Tzuke, Toyah, and Roland Corporation. International Who's Who in Popular Music appears to be an encyclopedia with hundreds of entries. The Google Books preview indicates his entry is just as detailed as most other individuals listed in it. It also verifies his date of birth. Single mention in Who Are You: The Life of Pete Townshend, but I'm unable to assess how (non-)trivial it is since I can only get a snippet view. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 07:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I discounted the Litchfield County Times story because it seemed to me to be mainly a promotional piece about a future event. On rereading the story, I do note that it says the following: "Jolyon Dixon and Stuart Ross have worked as musicians alongside some of the biggest names in the business, like Pete Townshend for example." Do people feel this statement does help establish the subject's notability? Does the use of the phrase "some of the biggest names in the business" brand the overall statement as puffery and deflate its value? Or does the mention of Dixon having "worked ... alongside ... Pete Townshend" suffice to override other concerns? Richwales (talk · contribs) 00:47, 16 August 2011 (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.