Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Nobody (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 no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Little Nobody[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Little Nobody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, sources obscure and not authoritative, peacocking, SPA vote stacking Lattefever (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Lattefever[reply]

Comment I could not find a Little Nobody in Rolling Stone or the reference. When an artile does not establish notability, peacocking is a reason to be suspect. This page has been around long enough and it has not improved. Lattefever (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Lattefever[reply]
Wher did you look in Rolling Stone? Australian issue #55, January 1999, in the reviews sections as indicated in the Pop Tart (album) article? Which reference did you mean by "the reference". Yes, peacocking is a reason to be suspect, to investigate further and edit, but not a reason to delete. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You will find that we've discussed evidence (below) and it is going to be provided shortly. Relevance has been pretty much amply provided through these references, but also fact that artist has worked with Justin Robertson and Si Begg, two masters in the electronic music field, plus he has run If? Records for 15 years. Not that I'm giving my opinion! Please hang in there regarding hard-copy of newspaper and magazine references.DSK1984 (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Artist is notable with a long music career. Article just needs references. - Shiftchange (talk) 09:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Almost all external links are broken save for the ABC artist profile which is very specific to the Melbourne scene, thus giving little justification for notability.

- Newspaper and magazine references are entirely unverifiable and only appear on the Wikipedia page when performing a Google search.
- When mentioning a long music career as grounds to keep the article, please check the notability of the labels. The labels involved are in fact not notable.
- The 3D World artist profile [2] (linked above by Duffbeerforme) is written in a deprecating, humorous manner so another article with peacocking terms cannot be used as justification for notability. Moreover anyone can register to 3D world in order to contribute as evidenced here:

Contributing Your Work
To add any content to the site, you must be a registered member of 3D World.

http://www.threedworld.com.au/contributors/
Therefore street press should not be grounds for notability as street press for niche music scenes does not have a high readership across Australia, its main aim is to cover weekly events and promote acts in its own city. WaltonSimons1 (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC) — WaltonSimons1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Unsigned comment by Duffbeerforme 14:10, 18 August 2009 [3][reply]

entirely unverifiable? Try going to a major Australian library, looking at the April 2, 1999 edition of The Age and trying to find the Culture Club Profile by Trish Maunder. Pick up a copy of Rolling Stone issue 55 and looking in the reviews section for the Pop Tart review by Chris Johnston. Google is not everything.
The ABC profile is another non-trivial published work that covers him, as is the [4] tv documentary series that that profile is for. Little Nobody is featured in the 4th chapter, Future Music.
Local coverage is still coverage. Duffbeerforme (talk) 04:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those references are difficult to obtain, this has already been mentioned.
The above documentary is not a tv documentary, it is an obscure online documentary. Twice now that you've linked sources without actually checking them. Perhaps you would also like to construct Wikipedia articles for all of the other artists with profiles listed? http://www2.abc.net.au/arts/soundsliketechno/html/artists.htm
Who said they were difficult to obtain. Walter above said "entirely unverifiable". Notability does not require easy to obtain, it requires real independent reliable sources. Since you are editing from a University of New South Wales address, maybe you could check their library, they should have a good one.
My mistake, not tv. But obscure? Hosted by the ABC. Official selection, 2004 Sundance Online Film Festival. 2004 Gold Hugo: Website Entertainment, The Chicago International Film Festival. Selected by life on film, Australia's Premier International Documentary Festival. Australian Interactive Media Industry Association, Awards 03 Finalist. Doesn't matter, it appears to be independent of LN and I see no suggestion it's not a reliable source. Duffbeerforme (talk) 04:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but please note Conflict Of Interest annotation (above) was submitted by an unlisted user at the University of NSW, and that it is believed that WaltonSimons1 is actually also from New South Wales [[5]]. Small world - and perhaps a COI should be applied to this contributor as well, who has been involved in very little else on Wikipedia til now.Popstarr69 (talk) 10:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC) — Popstarr69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
How exactly do you, Popstarr69, know where I'm supposed to be from? This is very interesting as I have not revealed anything about my location on Wikipedia. WaltonSimons1 (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that I have provided adequate reasoning for the article being deleted whereas users DSK1984 and Popstarr69 have been making attempts to discredit me (with extremely tenuous justification for doing so), and have not fully addressed the actual debate. WaltonSimons1 (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cant speak for Popstarr69 but in my case I don't think I've made an "extremely tenuous justification" for discrediting you, WaltonSimons1. All along, ever since the beginning of August, I've asked for some sort of explanation of your extreme interest in this entry - in somewhat unusual circumstances, as pointed out on Athaenara's talk page on 2 August [[6]].
On that page I pointed out that I noticed you were a new addition to Wikipedia, and that your sign-up and focus on the Little Nobody entry strangely coincided with the work of a very aggressive individual known as "V-Tron" on the Australian ITM Forum [[7]] who in late July and early August seemed to be irate and personally attacked Andrez Bergen (Little Nobody) as well as myself quite publicly on the forum threads there.
For instance this posting by him, which openly refers to the Little Nobody entry on Wikipedia: [8].
And this one which has a picture of the Little Nobody Wikipedia revision history - right before WaltonSimons1 got involved: [9].
And this one which refers to his smashing both Andrez and seems angry at me too: [10].
If you look at WaltonSimons1's profile, for starters his contributions page [[11]], you will find that his only postings have been on the Little Nobody entry, in apparent quest to have it deleted - other that one foray into the King Britt entry [[12]] on 11th August to actually fish for help..... in deleting THIS entry.
WaltonSimons1 has not once addressed the concerns I have raised about his/her motives here, nor answered the challenge about his/her relationship with this V-Tron character, in almost a month of being a member of Wikipedia. He/she seems to be obsessive about having the Little Nobody entry deleted, which does make me wonder about his/her background reasons.
Also, challenging what one perceives to be as "adequate reasoning for deletion" is part and parcel of the Wikpedia process.
When WaltonSimons1 says (above) that "Those references are difficult to obtain, this has already been mentioned," this is true, but if you peruse the entries (below), you'll note that I've been in touch with Bergen over in Japan and he has advised he'll make the references available if we need them. So not so difficult to obtain with a little bit of detective work.
Also, perhaps many of those artists on that not-so-obscure ABC documentary [[13]] should get their own entries? I'll think about that.
V-Tron's profile used to say "N.S.W." (New South Wales), but this has since disappeared, which I guess is why Popstarr69 has his/her own suspicions, since a recent entry above came from N.S.W. University.
Personally I have no proof that this V-Tron character is WaltonSimons1, but the suspicion remains.
My point here is that while I'm staying clear of making a judgment call on the worthiness of this entry for Wikipedia, since I'm the first to admit I am a fan of Bergen and his label If? Records - which is why I made so many updates on this entry - it's quite clear that WaltonSimons1 is himself/herself NOT a fan.... and therefore has his/her own Conflict Of Interest and should be asked to step back and allow the entry to be judged by our peers for its newsworthiness rather than his/her hidden agenda.
If deletion happens in clearer circumstances, it would be fair of course, but in the meantime I worry about this particular individual's motives.DSK1984 (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC) — DSK1984 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Sounds to me like DSK 1984, WaltonSimons1 and I should definitely bow out here, given the issues of COI, and let others unrelated make the decision so that everyone's satisfied. Two Keeps from Shiftchange and Duffbeerforme and I guess that's a Delete from Lattefever.
By the way, unrelated, but if DSK is able to provide the references from The Age, Rolling Stone, Wekkend Australian newspaper,, et cetera, do we worry about these?Popstarr69 (talk) 04:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 05:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am not supposed to work on Little Nobody page due to COI warning and cannot say Keep or Delete here but I have been in touch with Andrez Bergen in Japan, the man behind Little Nobody and If? and he has originals of many of newspaper and magazine references mentioned here and I asked him if he can make these available to us and he said yes....does this help out?DSK1984 (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes those articles will help. A COI does not stop you from saying keep or delete, just declare your COI. If you feel there is no problem with your interest, based on WP:COI, you can still work on the article. If there may be a problem you can still contribute though the articles talk page. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks, that's great. I'll get back to him and let him know, whats the best way to provide the articles? is there a fax number or address I can tell him about? Really appreciate the help and advice. I'm just basically a big fan but may be its better for me to stick to the outer here for now until a decision is made, but I can help out this way, anyway.DSK1984 (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I nominated this page, so I am not sure if I should vote, but the page fails to extablish notability. There is no evidence that this person has had any impact in his field. His album sales are not noted, his influence and collaboration projects are not notable. I think this is a peacocking page for a living person.Lattefever (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Lattefever[reply]
Hmm. If we look at the entries for Si Begg, Squarepusher, Quark Kent or Zen Paradox, their album sales are not noted, nor need they be to prove notability. Sometimes sales proves quite the opposite, but let us not get into that argument here. These people have made huge impact on their respective genres of music, as well as on the people in their local scenes, but some people still don't know who they are...that's the diverse nature of the music industry these days.Shareradar (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No you should not !vote, your nomination (unless you state otherwise), is already considered a delete !vote. From my understanding of the basic notability guidelines at wp:n the article combined with the album articles establish notability by showing he has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Sales, influence, charts, awards etc are not nessecary where coverage exists. The only reason to delete I see would be if this was a hoax but seeing something like this in Priest, Gail. Experimental Music: Audio Explorations in Australia. University of New South Wales Press. ISBN 9781921410079. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |origdate= (help) suggests it is not. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2009 (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/Little_Nobody_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1072145829"