Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ezekiel Ox

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ezekiel Ox[edit]

Ezekiel Ox (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)

Article is entirely unsourced, the article lacks notability and it reads as though it was written by the "musician" in question. It reads more like a CV than an article and appears to be an attempt at self promotion. Dalamani (talk) 15:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  19:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  19:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  19:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  19:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the best I found was only passing mentions at News, Highbeam and browsers. Notifying past user Drmies. SwisterTwister talk 07:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While we have articles on three of the bands that he has been lead singer of it wouldn't make sense to delete this. Coverage exists, e.g.: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. --Michig (talk) 09:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Michig, this is not bad (I looked at the first two). Can you please put your considerable talent to work on article improvement? Fix it up, please--previous versions were terrible. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm happy to look at it. It needs to be looked at along with the articles on the bands that he has been in to see how the content should best be organized. His first band looks clearly notable, and there's enough coverage of what he's done since then for the content to be retained somewhere. --Michig (talk) 09:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Article entirely lacks notability and is poorly and dubiously sourced. To me it reads as though its been written by the subject of the article as a CV of some sort. It does not justify inclusion in Wikipedia. Dalamani (talk) 02:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Articles don't have notability, subjects of articles do. Poor sourcing and tone can be dealt with by editing. --Michig (talk) 09:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Semantics, regardless the subject and the article entirely lack notability. Dalamani (talk) 11:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, all we have online is words, so semantics are important. I have stricken (struck?) your vote since as the nominator you already voted. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of new editors don't understand that we judge the notability of subjects at AfD, not article quality or how well sourced the article is. I thought it was worth pointing this out since you only appear to have made one article space edit before focussing your efforts on deleting Ezekiel Ox-related articles. --Michig (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what does my editing history have to do with this AFD nomination? Are you sockpuppeting for the subject of the article? There are claims (totally unsourced) on various articles on here (that all seem to written in the first person) to the effect that he is a notable Australian musician, even claiming Mammal as "one of the biggest bands in Australia". How is this justifiable as a Wikipedia entry? Anyway his efforts at being a "social activist" are far more notable than anything he has attenpted as a musician. Dalamani (talk) 09:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on grounds of multiple article-worthy bands, though the article is currently bad and needs more sources - David Gerard (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Further to my comment above, having looked at the Ox-related articles and what coverage I could find, his first band (Full Scale) appears clearly notable, which should mean that at the very worst that anyone proposes is to merge/redirect this article to that one. Looking at Ox himself and the other bands he has been in, I found:
  • Ezekiel Ox: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]
  • Mammal: [19] [20] [21], [22]
  • The Ox and the Fury: [23]
  • Over-Reactor: [24] [25] [26]
  • The Nerve: [27]

A Google search is unlikely to ever find all the coverage that exists, and neither is any one person, but just from what I've found Ox is sufficiently notable for an article. Mammal looks marginal but I would favour keeping as a standalone article rather than merging to this one. The Ox and the Fury, Over-Reactor, and The Nerve should in my view be merged into this article - all have received coverage but not enough to justify standalone articles. The articles on releases by the various bands listed above should be merged/redirected to the band concerned. I'm happy to do all this, improve the articles and add these sources, but I'm not going to put the effort into doing that just to see the articles deleted. --Michig (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The guidelines on musical notability state:

1. Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria: 

   Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1]
       This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following:
           Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.[note 3]
           Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.
           Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases.

Now most of the "sources" Michig has provided fall well outside of these criteria, and many of them talk only about his political activism, so I cant see how they support the claim for notability. All coverage is trivial and note he has used his Myspace page as a source in a related article. Likewise with chart success, there is no record of any chart success on ARIA for any of the bands he has been in, nor as a soloist. This article, and all those related, are just self promotion. Dalamani (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: Mammal did have chart success, their debut studio album, The Majority, peaked at No. 51 on the ARIA Charts. The ARIA Report ref for this is now in both Mammal article and The Majority one.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable via Mammal, and the rest of his activity belongs in a separate article. Wwwhatsup (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not notable at all by Mammal, the band never had any chart success as mentioned above, despite their own assertion to have been "one of the biggest bands in Australia". I am also concerned that there appears to be a relationship of sorts between Michig and Wwwhatsup here as Michigs name appears on Wwwhatsup's user page. As Ive been personally attacked on here for attempting to edit and nominate for deletion this page I dont dare say more, but I am looking DEEPLY into Wikipedia policies on this. Dalamani (talk) 11:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd agree that the article is poorly sourced. Overall I'm inclined to a "keep" but would want to see hard evidence of Mammal's notability before actually voting. Deb (talk) 15:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[28]. duffbeerforme (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK. Poor coverage but it does appear to confirm the claim of minor chart success. Deb (talk) 08:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hard evidence of notability as asked for. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a personal vendetta against Mr Ox. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT Disruptive? Not here for the right reasons? And you people wonder why I am concerned about bullying and sockpuppetry? Dalamani (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disclaimer. I have never ever heard before about mammals (as a band) or about Ezekiel (as a music player). I am here from some ANI page, willing to discover why the discussion there was so loaded. Indeed, it was about a boys band ! Applying the Ignorentia Non Est Argumentum policy, I have done some inquiries. And now I am facing with an ocean of unanswered questions. Among them:
  1. Since this is not the name at birth, do we have clues why this person is named Ezekiel Ox rather than <another prophet><another mammal> or anything else ?
  2. Since Mammals broke, do we have clues why (except from the PC 'there were some divergences') ?
  3. Since "After creating a huge buzz around their live shows, Mammal recently released their debut EP The Majority, which debuted at No.48 on the ARIA album chart. They launch it tonight at the Corner Hotel" is an absolute proof of notoriety, can someone explains why ?
In fact, I am rather inclining towards keep, from policy Other Stuff Exists Beside The Rolling Stones. But I am not that sure. May be I will comment again. Pldx1 (talk) 12:52, 1 December 2015 (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/Ezekiel_Ox&oldid=1139212064"