Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul D'Amour

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 22:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul D'Amour[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Paul D'Amour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating here to resolve a dispute between two editors who are revert-warring. There is a question of whether this individual has sufficient non-inherited notability. Polyamorph (talk) 09:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable for as founding member of Tool and other bands. The article includes listing or each band at WP:RSMUSIC Allmusic and Rolling Stone with D'Amour as a founder, it also has interviews and information primarily about D'Amour from other publications including Sin, Gashaus, Bassplayer and Metal Assault which are not listed at WP:RSMUSIC. Just to clarify I'm not one of the warring parties but did curate the article through then added some text and references in an attempt to bring the article up to a standard acceptable to the editor who had the notability issues. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
None of those sources provide significant, third party, reliable coverage on the band member himself. Sergecross73 msg me 17:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some of the references provided appear to indicate independent notability.Polyamorph (talk) 10:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bass Player looks pretty credible, and there is a ton of coverage via a simple google search. This person is clearly notable. Polyamorph (talk) 08:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
People keep saying WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, but this has been argued for a few weeks now, and only the same garbage sources keep being provided. If this is true, why doesn’t anyone find them? Sergecross73 msg me 14:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You keep quoting essay's, incorrectly I might add since I have not said there must be sources, I am saying there ARE many sources, a quick google search you can easily do yourself using the search term "paul d'amour" bassist returns 13,200 hits, including bassplayer.com, metal assault (audio), Revolver Magazine, allmusic biography, metalstorm.net biography, IMBD biography. This is just a few, I believe they represent significant coverage, the fact that their biographies exist on reliable sources, the fact that this is the founding member of a major band and other successful bands since, the fact that the information provided on the page can be cited to reliable sources, all points to this being a highly notable individual that clearly satisfies our notability policy on WP:GNG. Polyamorph (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lugnuts Im rather disappointed by your analysis here. These sources are unacceptable for a WP:BLP. Alternative Nation is an unreliable source per consensus WP:NOTRSMUSIC. “SilasLikesMusic” is a self-published WordPress Blog, certainly not the sort of thing you use in a BLP. BassPlayer is probably a reliable source, but it’s just an interview, as is Metal Assault, which I’m unfamiliar with. We don’t write WP:BLPs by interviews, which are largely first-party accounts. See WP:INTERVIEW for more issues around their use. Lastly, any other sources are merely passing mentions culled from band/album reviews. There’s nothing indicating independent notability here - we don’t have separate band member articles for every popular band. Sergecross73 msg me 17:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INTERVIEW is an essay. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I’m aware. But you’re missing the point. Are you arguing it’s acceptable to write a BLP according to first party accounts and self-published Wordpress blogs here? Sergecross73 msg me 17:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See below. Metal Assault is unlikely an RS either. Sergecross73 msg me 00:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant by my post was that I was able to find multiple sources in seconds. A bit more time, would find a whole lot more too. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, everyone keeps falling back on their WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES defense pretty hard... Sergecross73 msg me 14:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - None of the sources provided are providing significant, third party coverage appropriate for a WP:BLP article. It’s nothing more than a WP:BOMBARDment of unreliable blogs, and, passing mentions cherry picked from the bands he’s worked with. You can’t write a BLP article around that and a bunch of first-party-account interviews. Sergecross73 msg me 17:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revised stance - had always meant redirect because it is a plausible search term. Sergecross73 msg me 17:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lugnuts has offered us 3 unreliable sources and an interview. Not good. Sergecross73 msg me 00:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not sure Metal Assault counts as an RS, it's basically a one-man blog [5]. The source from Bass Player is the only reliable one I've found so far. Richard3120 (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Richard3120 Thank you for being the sole person to even comment on the source quality. I don’t know if I’ve pissed off an off-wiki Tool fansite, or the En-wiki Tool cabal, or what, but I can’t get people to even engage in discussion about the sources. This usually only happens when I’m arguing deletion for an indie video game with a passionate fan following or something... Sergecross73 msg me 00:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
People are talking about the sources, You just won't listen. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They sure are. They’re listing off unreliable sources, and saying things like WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Except you - we’ve been arguing for days on this, and you haven’t said a specific thing about a source or meeting the GNG. I’m not convinced you understand anything about notability at all, your every argument has boiled down to “but he was in Tool!” Or completely piggybacking off of what someone else said. Sergecross73 msg me 14:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sergecross73 this WP:BATTLEGROUND (WP Policy) behaviour and revert warring (also policy) at the page under question is unbecoming of an administrator. I would request you respect that other editors have other opinions to your own and that is OK. Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He's been standoffish and rude towards me during every interaction which why i put off responding to him, He deserves to be blocked for being uncivil and refusing to even listen to what other editors are saying. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would not go that far and it takes two (or more) to have an argument - all sides need to respect each other. However, administrators in particular are "expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others". Polyamorph (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not BATTLEGROUND to ask people to provide better sources or explain which sources provide reliably sourced significant coverage when the first batch of sources are largely unreliable. Even the newer batch contains an IMDB profile? Really? Furthermore, a look at the page history sheds a bit of context to your accusation of “revert-warring”. The edits related to redirecting the article consists of 3 edits across around 10 days - 1 edit WP:BOLDly redirecting, doing it again 4-5 days later when no one involved engaged in the talk page discussion, and then doing it again when the only person in the talk page discussion (not Jaydogg, who reverted 3 times w/o participating in the discussion at the time) said they were dropping it. So to be clear, we’re talking about 2 reverts, both done with no active talk page opposition at the time of making the edit. Sergecross73 msg me 18:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This, and the talk page of the article in question, is not a discussion with polite requests for clarification and civil interactions. It is a battleground. I will be interested in hearing the opinions of other editors on this matter (this AfD). Regards Polyamorph (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was reverted 3 times by someone who refused to engage in talk page discussion, and you want to focus on me not being nice enough when I have to ask something multiple times? Yikes, come on. Rest assured, I won’t ask any further, I won’t be wasting any further time on this AFD. I’ll leave to more constructive efforts. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 19:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. Polyamorph (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good, Go outside and get some fresh air. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are not the innocent party in this Jaydoggmarco, I have noticed some off-wiki canvassing related to this AfD by User:Jaydogg1994 who you are associated with. Please also interact with others respectfully. Polyamorph (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2019 (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/Paul_D%27Amour&oldid=1086082852"