Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donnie Witt

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. MBisanz ^talk 05:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Donnie Witt[edit]

Article subject does not meet general notability requirements — "significant coverage". Large majority of references are self-published primary sources. Single reliable source (Citybeat) is only minor coverage of the topic in a summary of a local concert. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 04:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 04:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete references are not sufficient for WP:NN, there should be press coverage fr33k man -s- 04:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lots of myspace and blogs, but insufficient 3rd party coverage WP:MUSICBIO. JamesBurns (talk) 06:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Credibility has already been asserted on multiple occasions by various users; the only self published link is in reference to the blog, subject has sold music in multiple countries and has performed on tour across the united states —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forevergonzo618 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: This is not about credibility, and it is suspicious that these various users include only yourself and an IP making the same edit. Please read the notability guidelines for inclusion as a subject on Wikipedia. Also, given your uploaded photos: If you are closely related to the subject of the article then you should consider making a declaration of interest. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: you need to refer to the history; notability has been has been asserted by at least three different users; I'm not closely related; vandalism will not be tolerated —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forevergonzo618 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for notability has been provided, thus it did not meet speedy deletion criteria, but the sourcing to verify notability has not been provided. If you can find any reliable sources, please add them now. Also, please stop removing the AFD banner, this is only disrupting the process and it is considered wilful vandalism. Thank you. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability and credibility has been established. There are several credible sources linked on the page. How much more info should be provided? No explanation is given by Sillyfolkboy as to why any if the information is not credible or a reliable source, suggesting the info is self published. This is false and incorrect. Sillyfolkboy is simply attempting to vandalize the page, even made an accusation I was closely related to the subject; a baseless falseless claim as well. Forevergonzo618 (talk) 11:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.144.88 (talk) [reply]

I apologise, I have misread the sources — I thought the "copyright 2008 Donnie Witt" referred to the article not the release. Still, the problem with sourcing stands. The reviews on cdbaby.com and event notice from citybeat do not pass as reliable sources and do not demonstrate that the subject has received significant media coverage. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make accusations of vandalism against other users who are following legit procedures. It might be considered incivil. tomasz. 12:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources by WP standards; nor are any of the WP:BAND 12 criteria satisfied to my eyes. tomasz. 12:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further note:It is vandalism if someone is posting false accusations and making assumptions, and using those baseless assumptions to try and delete the page; the subject has gone on a national tour, which by wiki standards generates notability —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forevergonzo618 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is neither vandalism nor an entirely baseless accusation to say that an editor may have a conflict of interest when they have uploaded self-made pictures of the artist in his own house. Furthermore, a national tour does not create notability, only significant coverage of that national tour does. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 04:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP:A public domain photo does not directly link anyone to the art. The same photo is available to anyone who wants to upload the pic. I'm reporting you to wikipedia for obsessive abuse. On a daily basis you have directly attempted to abuse and remove this page, which has several legitimate sources linked. You have made false accusations. That alone should be enough for you to be banned and tagged as abusive and a vandal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.144.88 (talk) 08:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please tone down the threats and huffiness, and consider reading WP:VANDAL to understand what is classed as "vandalism" on Wikipedia. Arguing for a page's deletion most categorically does not qualify, as there are at least three legitimate procedures for this on Wikipedia, of which one is being followed here. tomasz. 11:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realise the photo is in the public domain—thus no one effectively owns the copyright. However, in the photo description you describe it as your own work. It is this that led me to the conclusion that you took the picture yourself. If the photo is not your own work then please credit the original author. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are enough credible sources; a google search produces more then ten pages of random articles and links —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samson223 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. None on the first ten pages (that i can see) appear to be reliable sources by WP standards. Can you point out ones you think are? tomasz. 11:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. Listings on CD Baby, and event announcements in local papers do not establish notability. -- 15:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

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.