Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MC SKULE

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. ansh 666 07:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MC SKULE[edit]

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

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}}.

No indication of notability per WP: MUSICBIO or WP:ACADEMIC, and no significant coverage online from WP:RS, just some local coverage from the student newspaper of his alma mater. He worked briefly with a notable producer, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for starting this discussion to improve the article. A couple sources that aren't his alma mater's newspaper have been added. Searching for more national coverage to see if notability can be established. Found a few video news story but they are YouTube uploads - would this be considered credible? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tihg6sQFmtk — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesBluth (talk • contribs) 17:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube can be a reliable source in some circumstances, such as a clip of a broadcast from a notable concert, an interview from a reliable news source, etc. Please feel free to ask at my talk page if I can be of any assistance. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added the YouTube link mentioned by CharlesBluth, and found an additional post of the same video by the Channel itself rather than someone's own upload of the news clip. -Jayden — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.206.81.74 (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article seems to have improved drastically since its original creation, likely due to this discussion. Sources from beyond just a student newspaper have been added, to the point where notability seems to have been established from credible news stations, not just imdb and the high viewcount on a verified facebook. 47.19.88.20 (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC) — 47.19.88.20 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Although the article has been reworked, it has not been improved per the quality of references. In addition to school news, social media and user download sources like you tube, there is a first person promotional interview with an inspirational wordpress blog and a clip from a soft news segment on local television. The only source that might be third party is The Ann Arbor News, but the article—a standard piece on a local business— is largely the subject talking about himself. Simply not enough to merit wikipedia notability. Also worth noting that claims of working with a Grammy winning producer can’t be verified; the Grammys data base does not list this producer as having ever been nominated, let alone a winner. ShelbyMarion (talk) 10:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Disclaimer: Article Creator) I'd like to formally first of all apologize for creating the article in a hurry and inadequately citing and relying on Facebook primariliy as evidence rather than references in the first draft. The article now seems to be a lot more rigorous than my original creation, and while I do think that having a verified facebook page with viewcounts in the millions should serve as some evidence of "notability" (and therefore that it would be of general interest to see an objective, trust-worthy informational piece on the subject on Wikipedia), I understand that many external sources are needed to justify this. I think that those seem to have been added by others. So, I think that this version of the article should be kept and that the writing is not at all promotional or biased, and simply objectively states fact about an educator with some notability (I wouldn't consider this person a "musician" per se since his primary occupation is teaching). CharlesBluth (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: CharlesBluth (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Keep I think that this educator stub should be kept - while there aren't tons of references, I think that there are enough high quality third party references to at least merit a stub with this succinct, basic information that can be verified. Having collaborated with a notable producer and notable bollywood director shouldn't mean the notability is inherited, but having media coverage from that is what makes it notable. While two of the "third party" references are a student newspaper, we should consider that (according to its own wikipedia page) that student news paper has hundreds of thousands of visitors per month, and covers news beyond just the university. Additionally, the video clip from the Channel 4 news also seems notable (even though it's a YouTube upload) because it is an NBC affiliated station representing Detroit, which is one of the largest cities in the US - I'd imagine fairly competitive to get coverage on, and would certainly count as a "third party". The Ann Arbor News is similarly a third party reference, and all of these references cover this educator for his doing something creative with education itself - not just a teacher who got news coverage for his video game collection, for example. If this were about a musician, notability would be questionable, but other wikipedia articles on notable educators seem to have a similar level of references counting as sufficient for educator notability - coverage in a few large (not necessarily national) third party sources for that educator's work within education. This seems to be met. The only reference that was very weak was that someone above me mentioned, the "Inspirational Souls" blog where the subject did an interview talking about his work, and since it isn't clear how notable this "Inspirational Souls" blog is or whether it's a third party, I removed that reference and the information from it. So, I see no reason to delete this article because as someone else above said there is no promotional, fluff, or controversial sentences, and no detailed information (such as family or personal history) that wouldn't be of general interest, and the information about this educator's notability is well cited with third party references, in addition to the facebook links which add to the article by letting us reference the exact view counts that are stated, without relying on Facebook as the primary source. The only reason I think that the facebook links do add value to the article is because the page linked is verified, and from what I understand one cannot "request" verification, so Facebook must have determined that the page was notable enough to merit verification - again, that alone shouldn't be used to establish Wikipedia notability, but it helps to have those as additional references to verify viewcounts mentioned in the news articles. Ashleyreynolds (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC) — Ashleyreynolds (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment the article creator, the anonymous editor and the new account created five hours after the article was nominated for deletion have all claimed that his Facebook view count is evidence of notability, but this is not consistent with Wikipedia policy. Per ShelbyMarion above, so far there's insufficient evidence of significant coverage from WP:SECONDARY, WP:Reliable sources showing notability per WP:GNG, WP:BIO or WP:MUSICBIO. Regarding the comparison with other articles on educators, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 05:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment to Mr. MacTidy - I came to this article from the AfD articles about Michigan, of which there are only a handful, and since I'm new to wikipedia (as you pointed out, timing coincidence) I wasn't aware that FB shouldn't be used. Also, I've edited much more than this article in the week that i've been on wikipedia so far, trying to stay within my areas of specialty/Michigan as you can see. I have no conflict of interest or personal stake on whether this stub is deleted or not, just thought I'd put my two cents in since it's about a(in my opinion notable) viral teacher in the state i live in. Ashleyreynolds (talk) 06:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that the "anonymous editor" actually stated the opposite; that facebook and imdb should NOT be used. After reading that comment I actually deleted one imdb link and later one FB link. I did mention FB as indication of notability, and Ashleyreynolds did second that statement, but they also agreed with certain statements made by the editor who voted to delete, and as such they removed one of the sources I originally put with explanation. Either way, none of this will matter since the closing admin won't look at the headcount, but rather just the collective arguments on both sides. In general, this has been a very civil discussion on both sides, so I thank everyone for that. :) CharlesBluth (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Courtesy the impressive puppetry....
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local-only news coverage and view counts are not enough to persuade me of a pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NMUSIC.All refrences are local newspapers and lack indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:05, 6 October 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.