Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damien Tavis Toman

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. Waggers (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Tavis Toman[edit]

No evidence for encyclopedic notability as per Wikipedia:Notability (music). Created and edited by two single-purpose accounts, the article contains a huge amount of links to Mr. Toman's web sites, but no independent reliable sources - a blog posting noting the self-publication of one of his albums does not suffice. Prod was disputed with arguments which are honorable in themselves, but are not consistent with Wikipedia's definition of notability (Toman suffers from a lack of recognition, obviously stemming from his own self-deprecating nature. Simply because he has gone largely unnoted does not mean he is unnotable). HaeB (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Although the subject does return some results on Google, these are mostly blogs which can not be viewed as reliable sources per WP:RS. Does appear to fail WP:BAND. AVand ^talk _contribs 19:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It feels a little foolish to be suing for "justice" on Wikipedia, and I can't help but suspect that there is something of the humor of the gods in the fact that someone like this High On a Tree so-and-so would waste his time NOW on somebody like Damien Tavis Toman, whose chief difficulty in life seems to be that nobody has yet wasted enough time on him. I will be more than glad to insert footnotes to independent, third-party reviewers who have (for instance) lauded Toman's albums as "the greatest ever recorded," and balance the hyperbole with other reviewers who could not overlook his lo-fi ethic. Toman is a painfully independent artist who doesn't actively distribute his own work to the media. One discovers Toman by accident, or not at all. Unfortunately, Wiki notability standards are hard to apply in Toman's case, because the nature of his distribution method, such as it is, i.e, uploading each album to Soundclick.com, does not allow one to verify how many times any given song has been listened to or downloaded. Among those others I know who listen to him, he is unfortunately something of a coveted secret: his fans are not the sort of people who spend a lot of time on the Internet, gushing over their newest indie-rock heartthrobs. His discretion, it seems, is infectious. Maybe Wikipedia just isn't ready for anyone so atypical. All the same, I do not think his having an article is dangerous to anybody, least of all to the Wiki empire itself, which has already been irrevocably academically anathematized. My suggestion, therefore, is that you await my edits (which are ongoing), and kindly lay off. VGEpstein (talk) 19:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a lack of verifiability due to minimal reliable sources - referring to notable media references - means a lack of notability. I don't see this artist meeting WP:MUSIC at this point. Sorry. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My Humble Best - I entirely understand that I am chafing against Wiki policy with this article. But of all people, administrators (who seem to spend an unwholesome amount of time on Wikipedia) should be willing to admit that many, many articles are created about artists that do not meet the "notability" standard, and are overlooked. In my article about Toman, I have made use of every external source available, and have peppered the text with substantiating links. If I had written an article about some flash-in-the-pan crooner from 1957 who charted at #12 for the blink of an eye, but provided no sources or citations, the article would doubtless have been marked - but NOT for deletion. My view is that the industry has evolved, so your idea of who is notable and why ought to evolve as well. But we all know how notoriously opposed to change bureaucracies are... and Wikipedia is nothing if not a hive of self-appointed petty bureaucrats, frantic to gain the sense of relevance that they delight in denying others. Delete, then, if your rules tell you to; if it will make you feel useful. I've done all I can for you, and for my subject. VGEpstein (talk) 07:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no contradiction between making great music and not having an article on Wikipedia. And I would certainly agree with you that there are some people who have great commercial success with their music (as evidences by charts etc.), and therefore are regarded as encyclopedically notable, but whose music lacks artistic value.

But what you do not seem to understand is Wikipedia's principle of not making judgements of artistic value ourselves, but merely reporting the judgments of others - in this case, it is not our job to listen to Mr. Toman's music, or going to his gigs, to see if we agree with your opinion (which could quite possibly be the case!). Instead, Wikipedia rely on the judgement of the general public, as evidenced by reviews in established media, decisions of record companies and commercial success.

You seem to be a genuine music enthusiast and I am sorry if the editorial process of this Wikipedia article causes you bad feelings. But you also seem not to understand the problems that Wikipedia would face if it wouldn't adhere to its notability guidelines - how about looking through Special:NewPages yourself for a while?

Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sadly, I'm afraid I have to agree with the deletion votes. I like Toman's stuff (well, most of it), but it's a tiny number of people, even a check on last.fm shows hardly anyone listening to him. He just isn't notable enough. God knows there's plenty of articles on wikipedia about rubbish, talenetless artists, but they're (sadly) more notable because they've signed album deals, or had success, or been written about in the music press. Ged UK (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously?

First off, I have to say I was surprised to finally see a DTT article on Wikipedia! Now, my two cents on deleting it:

In theory, Wikipedia exists not to determine the validity of an artist, but to document their existence. If wikipedia becomes a judge and jury of culture and what should be deemed "relevant", it has ceased to provide an objective view and should be billed as a subjective medium capable of such discriminations. I don't think anyone wants that.

I have a large portion of Toman's discography, one of which is the massive box set I ordered after seeing his ad for it on MySpace. I have loads of his songs on my iPod right now. I have gone to his shows with plenty of friends who are also aware of his music. It seems unfortunate that if I were to try to spread his subversive music, I could not recommend Wikipedia as a source for information.

By nature Toman is a subversive and odd fellow, which seems to be an integral part of his concept as an artist. He may have a small fan base by arena-rock standards, but his unique ability to thrive under harsh and inhospitable climates makes him more like a rare species worthy of study than one worthy of extinction! Recommending his article for deletion seems so paradoxical to me it's at the point of silliness.

Anyway, thanks for hearing my thoughts.

Infaction ( talk) 14:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC) infaction (a fan of the musician who exists [at least enough] to have a page on Wikipedia)[reply]

CommentI agree that he should be studied, but that's exactly what Wikipedia is not for; wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository for everything ever. See WP:NOT for more clarity. If (and hopefully when) Toman starts being noticed by the larger music press (or smaller but well respected), then he'd warrant an encyclopedic entry. Until then, I can't see why he's different to the thousands of other unsigned, highly talented artists around. Sadly. --Ged UK (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. i don't want to assume bad faith, but only six individual listeners on last.fm, a website to which anyone can upload their music, does not speak of a musician with a big underground following but a minor lack of reliable sources. It speaks to me of promotion for a prolific yet non-notable musician with production and distribution methods that are actually pretty unexceptional and quite common, rather than unique or subversive. Lots of people release their own music on or off the internet. tomasz. 17:04, 26 August 2008 (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.