Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Wolfenberger

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. John254 02:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Wolfenberger[edit]

nn artist who fails WP:MUSIC. Prod removed by IP. A Google search gets the artist's home page, his MySpace, and Wikipedia in that order, followed by a bunch of mp3 download pages. Allmusic has almost nothing on him. No other RS hits - altcountry.nl is just a website, and there's nothing of substance in the interview. The "Euro-Americana" chart is not an industry chart, but a private chart run by a website, and seems to be based on what people vote on - the latest #1 took 5 votes to get the spot. No gold records, no tour coverage, no major releases. His label is a local indie label that he helps run, and he hasn't won or been nominated for any major music award. No notable media performances, and he's not representative of a genre at all. No rotation, and no documentary. MSJapan (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to me by these guidelines that most every independent musician, performer, songwriter page would have to be removed from wikipedia. Short of littering this page with references to every record review I don't know how to rectify this. In looking at this article I see a reference to a review in Italy's largest newspaper Corriere della Sera, Detroit's largest art and music paperDetroit Metro Times, Britains largest site devoted to Americana Americana-UK.com not to mention within his hometown of Cincinnati where he has been Artist of the Year, songwriter of the year, album of the year and reviewed favorably by every major media outlet for every release (both dailys, both weeklys, radio and television).

You are right there are no gold records and no major releases but by definition an independent artist doesn't have either of those. His genre is obviously Americana being a member of Mark Olson and Victoria Williams Original Harmony Ridge Creekdippers and by virtue of the fact that most of his reviews are in Americana publications where he is well received.

How should we proceed without cluttering the article further than it already has been. Along with Katie Reider who died tragically last week Wolfenberger is probably the most definitive example of the Blue Jordan sound. Perhaps I should note that along with references in this article but once again I see that it is fairly cluttered in comparison to the last time I saw it and I don't know if more references will help. Bluejordan (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluejordan (talk • contribs) 19:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did the rewrite of this article and deprodded it. I thought I referenced enough independent non-trivial sources to justify keeping it. His international touring and his involvement and collaboration with Victoria Williams, Mark Olson and Michelle Shocked alone would be grounds for notability aside from his representation of a local scene (Cincinnati) and genre (Americana / Blue Jordan sound). I agree with Bluejordan that further references (of which I found many with just a couple cursory searches) would only clutter an already lengthy article though.70.61.154.202 (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Comment] In response to this post on my user page from user:MSJapan;

"You're right about your assessment that most indie musicians should be deleted; there are minimum notability requirements here because Wikipedia is not a local interest website. Anyone can self-press a CD and call themselves an indie musician, but that doesn't make them a notable topic. That's not a musical value judgment, either; it just means that they're not appropriate for an encyclopedia. By the way, given your username, comments, and unfamiliarity with Wikipedia basics, you may want to look at the conflict of interest policy if you're going to continue to edit articles on Blue Jordan artists. MSJapan (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)"

I have taken his advice and read the "conflict of interest" policy and although I am not officially associated with Blue Jordan Records I am an enthusiastic supporter which I do not believe puts me in violation of the "conflict of interest" policy but in the interest of keeping the wikipedia project and this particular discussion above reproach I will respectfully decline further comment or edits during the deletion discussion. I will state that I objectively find this artist and article to be notable by wikipedia standards using at least three of their qualifications. I would also hope that MSJapan by nature of his user name and the fact that he is an enthusiast of Japanese literature and a Mason would not be prohibited from commenting on and editing articles on those subjects for fear of being in violation of the "conflict of interest" policy.Bluejordan (talk) 14:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that: a) I'm an established editor, b) I'm very clear about any potential issues, and c) I don't use a username that implies I'm a company whose artists and articles I edit. When an article comes up for AfD that nobody has sourced in months, and all of a sudden an IP and a new user just happen to have information, it's just a bit suspicious. MSJapan (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a new user, although inexperienced (i.e.- I don't know how to bullet or indent my comments). I used the name "bluejordan" when I created my login at least a year or more ago because I think I first logged on to edit the article Blue Jordan Records which had blatantly incorrect information on it. I was drawn back to the article because of the untimely death and funeral service for Katie Reider this last weekend (which the New York Times had a nice article on speaking of notability). I'm sure the other users you are accusing of being "sockpuppets" were drawn here for the same reason. Finally I ended my last comment as cordially as humanly possible by stating that I hoped you would NOT be prohibited from commenting on topics that you are obviously an enthusiast of or organizations that you are a member of. Your stated membership in the Masons and editing of related articles is much more of a conflict of interest than my editing of articles about a (non-profit I believe) organization I am an enthusiast of. As far as suspicious activity is concerned your aggressive pursuit of the deletion of articles related to this label is certainly suspect.Bluejordan (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please reserve this page for the deletion discussion and continue any other conversations on your talk page(s). Thanks. -MrFizyx (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His time with the Creekdippers, the likes of Michelle Shocked and Victoria Williams appearing on his albums should count for something and there seem to be enough sources to support an article. The whole discussion above makes my head spin. Wikipeida is the third google hit for him... Ya know its the second hi for Dylan or Springsteen. On the other hand I don't understand the complaint that this article is already "cluttered" with references--I think it could be better sourced; good sources are maybe more important as with someone this obscure. I'm leaning towards keep though. -MrFizyx (talk) 22:55, 1 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.