Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David James (American artist)

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. L Faraone 00:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David James (American artist)[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Likely autobio attempting to prove notability through association with other artists. No references support any associations or anything else in the article. | Uncle Milty | talk | 12:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - at first I was taken in by sheer quantity of references but they are not acceptable. Deb (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - whoever created the article mislabeled David James as an artist, after a more targeted search it can be found that he is a well-known and influential industry mix/master engineer and writer. the work is incomplete and needs some better reference sources, he has appeared in multiple in-print magazine articles. Jessica1214 (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above user's first edit was to her user page and then the article, although I don't think it is a huge issue as long as they aren't a sockpuppet. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure the closing administrator will take this into account when assessing the level of consensus.Deb (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, my attention was drawn to this article's nomination for deletion while I was searching for a reference for a different article. This person actually meets the criteria for notability, he was the mix/master engineer for various songs that made the U.S. Billboard charts and his work is all over national and international radio. I know it's verifiable in print because I had to write a research paper on him. I've been searching for internet articles but they seem scarce. Jessica1214 (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that MuzicNotez, the source of many of the "references", is actually an advertising agency. David James's photograph appears on their website as one of their clients.Deb (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- MuzicNotez.com was the source of only one reference, not many. The site is host to a magazine covering up-coming artists, where the article on David James is featured. It would be silly for them to include an article about him without a photograph. Jessica1214 (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - MuzicNotez the advertising agency also powers GlobalOnslaught.com. That pretty much leaves no independent references.Deb (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - wow, I didn't know that at all. We should delete those references in that case. It's so funny, the articles I used for my research paper are in scholarly journals that I can't link to on here because they require membership through a college to access. His complete biography is also included in a hardback book of well-known audio mixologists, which I can't seem to find online. I suppose if he gets deleted now, he'll resurface later by someone's hand. The crazy thing is, James is said to be somewhat of a 'studio-hermit' with an disdain for mass media so it's odd that he would create an article like this. I suspect one of his die-hard supporters is behind it, and that's probably why the article seems sketchy. Knowing what I know, I'm sure other audio engineering students are going to find it odd that he's not considered 'notable' on wikipedia of all places. I suppose 'notable' in the scholastic world and on the internet are two different things. Jessica1214 (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never used wikipedia up until now and I've been perusing through various wikis from music artists and the like... I have a new respect for artists who have wiki pages. The editors here really try hard to get people's wikis deleted. I even witnessed one fella engaging in a full-blown heated argument over the notability of an artist who was signed to Universal and had a Top 40 hit at the time. All I gotta say is 'I'm rootin' for DJ!' These days, one can be loved and known by millions, there are still Billions of people who would rather see them fail.Jessica1214 (talk) 20:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think with current things we're a bit harsher, but with older anything, it's easier to pass it through, from what I have noticed. I do agree that some people actively try to inhibit articles from being created, but I am certainly not one of them. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Jessica, if you saw the sheer amount of spam that is submitted to us, much of which is so blatant that it gets deleted without discussion, you would understand why we have become stricter. I'm glad someone has added a reference to a written source (Encyclopedia of Audio Mixologists - The Past and Future of Digital Recording) but I'm a bit baffled as I can't find any reference to this book on Amazon or even Google, and there is no reference to the publisher or date - for all we know it could just be one of those directories that you pay to get your name in. If anyone has information on this source, please add it to the article.Deb (talk) 10:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; while this is arguably one of the messiest articles I've ever seen, he would appear to pass WP:BLPN. The article requires work; I've made a start by re-arranging the article and removing all WP:PROMOtional content from the headings, but an expert in the field is needed.--Laun chba ller 21:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find anything to verify notability on this producer. There is one single by 2 Pistols that he produced but he was the producer, not the artist whose name the single was released under, so this does not meet notability. Also, the single only charted on the US Rap chart and US R&B chart, not the actual US national chart so the single does not confer notability on the artist anyway per se. Silverwood (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article creator was blocked for sockpuppetry. Many of the sources are highly suspect. Article attempts to confer notability on the subject through association with other artists. At the very least, clean out everything sourced by the dubious sources, which would essentially reduce the article to a stub. Safiel (talk) 05:00, 25 April 2013 (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.