Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael L. Vincent

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 Delete - A possible borderline claim to notability as composer is outweighed by a rather widespread agreement that there aren't enough independent sources for a biography. Tikiwont (talk) 11:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael L. Vincent

Michael L. Vincent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
  • Delete Non notable musician, no non-trivial sources, fails WP:BIO I have done a google search and cant find any published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent or independent of the subject. BigDunc (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is little coming up on google for him, but this is not unusual for a contemporary composer. There are 4 independent news stories from canadian news papers concerning his work on a notable project cited. His opera is also listed in a reputable opera database. His piece "Essence" was included on a publicly available CD of electroacoustic works, and he is also listed in a significant composers community website (Canadian Electroacoustic Community). These sources seem reliable and intellectually independent and seem to be a reflection of the notability of this composer.Gregg Potts (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't worry they won't get it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.64 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 26 February 2008
  • Delete - there is little or nothing available about this supposedly notable opera, outside of a non-notable advertising-supported website; "publicly available" is not the same as "signed by a major label," but rather just a step above self-publishing; and "community website" = "forum= = "not a reliable source." The notes that talk about Triaspora do not, in many cases, even mention his involvement, and thus certainly fail any test of notable mention. The Georgia Straight I consider a reliable source; but neither article from the Straight cited so much as mentions Vincent's name in passing. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • response - I just wanted to to clarify one point in Orgemikes comment above regarding Vincent's CD. After some research, It seems is in fact produced by a major label/organization called Canadian Electroacoustic Community. The CD in question "Discontact III" features a jury selected compositions. This alone seems to suggest he is notable.Gregg Potts (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Orangemike and the fact that my search didn't turn up anything else either. Please also note that Greg Potts has a vested interest in this article's continued existence TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 00:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

response

    • response - Regarding the comment on my "vested interest," of myself by TRAVELLINGCAR, I can assure you it is my sole intent to add to the wiki content, and there is nothing wrong with supporting a wiki entry questioned notability using the facts. Remember, this is debate should be made using the facts alone and not users personal opinions behind others intent. Gregg Potts (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • response - per our guidelines on conflict of interest, if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when: 1. Editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with, 2. Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors... You have failed to do either. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • response -Again your personal assumptions are not relevant to this debate regarding the notability of Michael Vincent. I have respond to the comment, and assured you I have no conflicts of interest. Like you I've been assuming good faith. This is my first article, and I believe he is a notable addition to wikipedia so I have added it. 5 min after adding it, it was consistently tagged for speedy deletion, and passed despite the continued attacks. The evidence has been disregarded. It is a shame there are many who seem interested in arguing in the removal of relevant wiki material.Gregg Potts (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • my personal assumptions are aside, and he's still not notable per WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 01:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • response -What no-one seems to be admitting here is that he has been established as notable according to point 2 of the Wikipedia:Notability (music) guidelines for a composer. It states:

"Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run as such things are judged in their particular situation and time." His musical theatre work Triaspora was performed in a notable theatre (Chan Centre for the Performing Arts), Vancouver's premiere theatre (http://www.chancentre.com/), and it had a reasonable run. Triaspora was covered by 4 independent news sources ("The Province", The "Vancouver Sun", "The North Shore News", and Georgia Straight) all previously cited, and effectively establishing it as FACT. Michael Vincent is a notable composer period.Gregg Potts (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As Orangemike states the only reliable source that can be found remotely related is the Straight and it doesn't even mention this non notable composer, also if there is a WP:COI it would be good if it was cleared up thanks.BigDunc (talk) 09:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • response - This was cleared up if you already if you have been following the argument: ("The Province", The "Vancouver Sun", "The North Shore News", and Georgia Straight) are all reputable news agencies. With all due respect, It would be more helpful if you keep up with the arguments instead of insinuating incorrect information.Gregg Potts (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • response - These 4 objective news sources are about Vincent's project not Vincent. The point of these sources were to establish the notability of the musical theatre work. His participation in the project is noted on this website <http://www.orchidensemble.com/multi_triaspora.php>. It is not unusual for news stories to not mention the composer when many performers are involved ie: dance, live visual images, and a Chinese chamber ensemble. AGAIN, his musical theatre work Triaspora was performed in a notable theatre (Chan Centre for the Performing Arts), Vancouver's premiere theatre (http://www.chancentre.com/), and it had a reasonable run. Triaspora was covered by 4 independent news sources ("The Province", The "Vancouver Sun", "The North Shore News", and Georgia Straight) all previously cited, and effectively establishing it as FACT. According to wiki own rules, they are notable. Interesting no-one is arguing this particular FACT.Gregg Potts (talk) 14:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If Vincent is notable, you should be able to produce sources about him. All you've produced is namechecks. One Night In Hackney303 14:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is not unusual for news stories to not mention the composer when many performers are involved that's not true, composers are frequently mentioned if they merit mention, i.e. are notable TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 15:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would have to agree with you there TRAVILLINGCARI just look here notable composer and mentioned in first line. BigDunc (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • response - I think this debate is a good one, and appreciate all the stimulating comments being made on this! However, nobility of a composer is not synonymous with fame how how many times his name in mentioned in the press. It is based on the 6 clear criteria listed in wiki guidelines regarding notability of a composer:
For composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists:
  • 1: Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.
  • 2: Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run as such things are judged in their particular situation and time.
  • 3: Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria.
  • 4: Has written a song or composition which has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers.
  • 5: Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist that meets the above criteria.
  • 6: Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on his or her genre of music.
Now according to this, if he satisfies any of these, he is unarguably notable (for wiki standard). I have proved with verifiable sources he satisfies point 2. Evidence of this is found in 4 independent news stories describing the project- (not Vincent specifically, but the project). Evidence found on this website that claims he was a co-composer: <http://www.orchidensemble.com/multi_triaspora.php>. According to wiki's own rules, specific for composers he clearly qualifies as a noted composer. Case closed, he should not be deleted. I suggest that if some sources need editing, then they need to be edited, but the validity of this articles presence on wiki should not be in question.Gregg Potts (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've not seen a reliable source that says the theatre was notable, or that the run was of a reasonable length, thus point 2 is not satisfied to the best of my knowledge. There are still no non-trivial independent reliable sources, please provide them. One Night In Hackney303 19:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are few notable Canadian composers - Michael Vincent is one of them. He has made his mark in every corner of Canada, with ongoing performances from Montreal to Vancouver. He has an audience which appreciates his pioneering movement to use pre-recorded elements (text especially) and make the classical genre approachable to mass audiences; this isn't a common theme here just yet (as opposed to the states). True, his name may not be all over the press (as he is commissioned to compose most of his works), but his works are and that should speak for his notability, not against - that he is sought after by Canadian performers to compose for them.Wasfou514 (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)wasfou 514 — Wasfou514 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment Sources? There's still no evidence he passes WP:MUSIC TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 16:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • response -Sources have already been listed. (4 articles describing the project, and one source conforming Vincent participated in it.)- see aboveGregg Potts (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • response -Again, these sources mention his project which makes them relevant in establishing the significance of it an an entity in itself. His link to the project are provided elsewhere- the project website. The two combine to establish his notability as per point 2 of the wiki rule regarding notability of composers (see above for full enumerated list).Gregg Potts (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, they might establish the notability of his project, but they do nothing to assert his notability. Major composers are notable, there's no evidence this one is. I also echo the above comments, COI is an issue here as you're unable to look at the article from a neutral POV. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 19:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As far as I can see, the theatre isn't notable, and the run wasn't of a reasonable length - thus meaning he fails point 2. It's quite clear by your inability to actually provide sources that mention Vincent in any level of detail that they don't exist, meaning he fails the primary notability criterion. Also as his press "coverage" (and I use that term loosely) is only in the context of the show in question, WP:MUSIC recommends merging him there anyway, thereby removing most of this puff piece. One Night In Hackney303 19:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could anyone provide a WP:V and WP:RS link regarding the notability of theatre?BigDunc (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Searching "Vancouver Performing Arts Theatres" brings up many sources: According to the official website of the city (Vancouver), it is mentioned:<http://www.hellobc.com/en-CA/SightsActivitiesEvents/ArtsCulturalHistoricalExperiences/TheatrePerformingArts/Vancouver.htm> It is also included on this website <http://www.cultureandcommunities.ca/resources/cultural-facility-profiles/artspace-north/chan-centre.html> Ticketmaster (Canada's primary source for concert tickets) has many shows listed: <http://www.ticketmaster.ca/venue/139280> This seems to suggest it is well established, and notable.
In regards to the run, according to the cited website and the source articles it was performed over a 3 days, and two different cities and venues. <http://www.asiancanadian.net/2007/09/triaspora-orchid-ensemble-moving-dragon.html> and one place here: cached file: <http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:7FXK_2E4RLUJ:www.harbourliving.ca/event/crimson-coasts-infringing-dance-festival-triaspora/2007-09-15/+InFringing+Dance,+Nanaimo+BC,+Triaspora&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=safari>. Looks like a reasonable run.Gregg Potts (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid WP:DRAMA won't help. :) Vincent's alleged notability is as a composer; theater-related guidelines, even if they existed, wouldn't be much help here. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly won't, it's a redirect to WP:ANI ;) One Night In Hackney303 20:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm sorry, might I remind you of the notability criteria: "Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run as such things are judged in their particular situation and time." Triaspora ran for a reasonable run and was notable as a project - this alone should satisfy the notability requirement.
    In addition, although Generation X did not see a run, it was a notable project involving slam style poetry and did place Michael Vincent at a different level as a composer by collaborating with notable artist and author, Douglas Coupland.
    Finally, many of his pieces have seen multiple performances in notable theatres and in different incarnations.
    I believe that if you're going to claim :COI, you should perhaps claim it on yourself, as it seems you have a vendetta against an actual young and notable Canadian composer and we as the audience will continue to defend this sought after composer's notability, just as we would John Oswald's (already included on wiki) or Arne Eigenfeldt's. No need to add sources, they're all there and I'm sure there will be more to come over time as performances and press arise.Wasfou514 (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)wasfou514[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFF is not valid. I have no COI, I just don't believe non-notable people should be included per WP's guidelines. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 21:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing to prove the theatre is notable, and I don't consider that any reasonable thinking person would consider a three day run in any way notable. And yet again, I request sources that cover Vincent with more than a namecheck. Do they exist? Yes/No (delete as applicable) One Night In Hackney303 21:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Over 3 days and two different cities was that once in each city, with a break in between or 3 performances? Not a very lenghty run.BigDunc (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • response: According to the links, the run was 3 days, in 2 cities. Two were in Vancouver at the Chan Centre, and 1 was in Nanaimo as part of a larger dance festival. The run is short compared to a broadway show, or an event an opera at the MET, but I think reasonable for a contemporary musical theatre show with multimedia, and modern dance.Gregg Potts (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Get over yourselves, anyone who doesn't understand that he's notable is racist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.64 (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — I have access to the complete Canadian Newsstand archives till 1980, and I can't find any non-trivial coverage of this. I guess that makes me racist. --Haemo (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • response: -AGAIN, according to wiki guideline regarding the notability of composers, Vincent qualifies for category number 2:
"Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run as such things are judged in their particular situation and time."
This point has been established with 4 factual news sources (previously cited) and all but one were proved significant news sources ("The Province", The "Vancouver Sun", and Georgia Straight). The production website (previously cited) clearly states that he composed the music. The theatre has been proved a notable, and the run a reasonable length. If you can't disprove these facts, then no matter what anyone personally believe, according to wiki guidelines he is notable and should qualify as notable. You may not like it, but "thems the rules folks" :)Gregg Potts (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment. The burden still exists to provide multiple nontrivial sources, i.e. lengthy writeups about this composer and his works/career, to establish notability. The sources provided may be reliable, but they are trivial mentions, at best. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • response: Basic notability guidelines are only 'generally' relevant, and mainly concern cases with no specific stipulation unique to the artcile topic. Remember this is an article about a composer, and wiki has special guidelines concerning the notability of composers. These special composer notability standards should be the ones used to measure Vincent's notability: WP:MUS (see section re:composer). As a side note, I think it is helpful to understand something about the Canadian contemporary classical music 'scene'. In Canada, (and perhaps elsewhere), unless a composer is famous worldwide, they are usually just mentioned as composer of the works in question (as some have described as trivial)- they are often overshadowed by the performers and the musical event itself. I suspect this is why there are special guideline reserved for occupations requiring a unique set of notability standards.Gregg Potts (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:Bio#Basic_criteria. I've been to every source provided, and there is not one of those listed that is anything more than a trivial mention. In fact, a some don't even mention him at all, and this is an article about him, not his works. It is early in his career, wait until there is something substantial that the music community has written about him. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 04:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am personally changing to Keep per Voceditenore's extensive research below on the subject. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 01:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • response: I don't think anyone is stating any one of these prove notability on there own. However they all help map the work of this composer and are relevant to the article. Remember citations are provided not just to prove notability, but also offer links to further information on relevant to topics, idea etc raised in the article. His notability is established using wiki guidelines for establishing notability of a composer. WP:MUS (see section re:composer)Gregg Potts (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • response Please note that there are separate criteria for musicians and composers, see WP:MUSIC. This leads to our going around in circles - In an effort to not repeat everything listed above: The coverage of composed musical theatre production is from reliable sources and not trivial, as complete articles were dedicated to the production. As his contribution as composer to the production has been confirmed in the various articles, and as the production ran for a reasonable run, his notability is also confirmed.137.82.115.250 (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC) — 137.82.115.250 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment The article says: "Michael also contributed as one of four composers in a . . . work entitled Triaspora, performed at the Chan Centre for the Performing Arts on September 21-22, 2007 . . ." . The Chan Centre is indeed notable in the sense that well-known international artists perform there, such as Emanuel Ax and Bryn Terfel. So this does appear to establish some (possibly slight) degree of notability given that Vincent's name appears in reviews.-- Kleinzach (talk) (Opera Project) 09:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC) Followup: I now understand that the performance was not on the main stage, so I am withdrawing my opinion above. -- Kleinzach (talk) 11:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neutral (See my comment Looking further below. Voceditenore (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)) I'm here because of a notice at the Opera Project asking for comment. You might want to look at the criteria we use in borderline cases, such as this one, which was at the very minimum of the notabilty required for a keep. In my view, Michael Vincent isn't there yet. I've checked out all the independent sources provided in the article and in my view, they are not enough to establish notability for the following reasons:[reply]
  1. Vincent is only mentioned in passing as one of the four composers whose pieces were used in Triaspora, a dance work. He's not mentioned at all in some of the 'references' provided for these performances. All the articles for Triaspora are similar and are about the choreographer/dancers of the Moving Dragon ensemble and (to a certain extent), the musicians in the Orchid Ensemble - not him. The references for his other work are all simple announcements of performances, i.e. trivial. Neither he nor any of his compositions has been the subject or significant component of non-trivial independent coverage as required by the Music Notability Guidelines. The fact that he doesn't appear much on a Google search isn't necessarily an indication of non-notability. Coverage of contemporary composers and their work may appear only in specialist publications that aren't online. Having said that, these have to be reputable, independent, (and non-student) publications. However, I note that there are no references to such articles about the subject or his work listed in his Wikpedia article. I'm sure if they existed, they'd be listed.
  2. Triaspora may have been performed in a notable arts centre, but note that it wasn't on the main stage of the Chan centre, it was in the Telus Studio Theatre. Its 'run' consisted of 2 performances, and Vincent was not the sole composer's work used in the production. In fact, I'm wondering exactly how much of the music was provided by him. Even the production itself is only borderline notable (at least judging from the sources provided).
  3. The opera he's composed was part of his Master of Fine Arts degree requirement at Simon Fraser University, and so far has only been performed as a student production.
  4. There is no indication that his music has even been published, let alone by a noted music publisher.
  5. As for the 'awards' listed, they are all student grants and fellowships, including the "Alain Award in Electroacoustic Composition" at Concordia University (see [1]).
  6. The assertion in a comment above that "He has made his mark in every corner of Canada, with ongoing performances from Montreal to Vancouver" has no verification at all in independent, reliable, and notable Candadian sources. Again, if proper verification is available to justify such a statement, why is it not in the article? I'm afraid that "I've heard of so-and-so and they're great" is not a valid argument in a notability discussion on Wikipedia. Voceditenore (talk) 10:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • addenda to 1. & 2. above To call Triaspora a musical theatre work which Vincent composed or to refer to it as "His musical theatre work" is stretching the limits of the notability guideline for composers to its breaking point in my view. In addition, the only other performance apart from the 2 in the studio theatre of the Chan Center was a single performance in Malaspina University-College Theatre. Voceditenore (talk) 11:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • addenda to 3. above To say (as someone did higher up the page) that Vincent "collaborated with notable artist and author, Douglas Coupland" for his opera Generation X is also not quite accurate. Having read Vincent's M.F.A. thesis, Coupland does not appear to have had any significant input in the project or have collaborated actively apart from granting Vincent permission to use parts of his novel for the dialogue.[2]
  • Looking further Inspired by Michael Bednarek's comments, I've pursued this a little further, as I wanted to make sure we weren't doing the article (and its subject) an injustice. What has been presented so far as evidence is not really enough to establish notability. His role in Triaspora was slightly exaggerated (as was it having been performed in a 'notable theatre' in a 'reasonable run'), and the purported 'collaboration' with Douglas Coupland was frankly misleading. However, in the case of a contemporary composer, having more than one composition played by more than one reasonably notable ensemble might possibly help make up for an almost total lack of independent published coverage of either him or his compositions. So I followed up some of the others mentioned in the article (and surprisingly not mentioned in the discussion here). What the article calls the 'Bozzini String Quartet' is actually Quatuor Bozzini who are reasonably notable, e.g.[3]; as is the Bradyworks ensemble's director Tim Brady (not currently linked to his Wikipedia article in the Michael L. Vincent article) and John Oswald who is linked. Vincent himself is not mentioned on the official web sites of any of them, but I have no reason to doubt that they did play his work or include it in their programs. The ÉuCue festival at Concordia University, (where a lot of his work seems to have been played does get a few mentions in Computer Music Journal published by MIT Press. (I can only access the abstracts though, not the articles). Is all that enough? I don't know. Possibly. Voceditenore (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Voceditenore. -- Kleinzach (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC) (Reviewing Voceditenore's last note, I still think this should be deleted.) -- Kleinzach (talk) 02:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep IMO sufficient notability established. Also: Cui bono? Wikipedia can afford thousands of pages on the most obscure sportspeople, starlets of dubious talent, etc. I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:POKEMON and similiar essays, but it still irks me that the exclusion of less popular or even esoteric artists is so passionately argued. Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insignificant. Fails WP:BIO. Eusebeus (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sources provided do not demonstrate sufficient notability and I’ve been unable to find better ones. Also, there is a fairly good chance that this is a vanity page. I’ll change my vote to keep though if someone can provide me with good quality, neutral sources that prove the composers importance. --S.dedalus (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep Keep Keep if you don't get how vital he is, then it's your own fault for being an uneducated idiot. — Mainquick1985 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
No personal attacks please. “Knowing who he is” is insufficient reason to keep an article. Sources must prove notability. --S.dedalus (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Totally a keep, and if you even try to delete we'll just keep re-creating until you see that it's the only thing to do — Unitdealt1987 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep, he's an important composer and that's all that matters. — Storyrates1987 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete. No signs of notability. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Fails WP:Bio#Basic_criteria, after reviewing sources presented here and conducting further research. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. This may be very interesting to those involved in this discussion. [4] --S.dedalus (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I got a message from one of them on my talk page acting as if I knew them, and that they were making copies of the article. (sigh) I think they are trying to make it look like I am vandalizing this discussion via a 3rd party. I deleted it.Gregg Potts (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is very interesting, and I've been deleting those copies left and right. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve asked at WP:AN that the creation of further copies be blocked. --S.dedalus (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like the trolls are all over this one.Gregg Potts (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry about it, they always seem to think this is something we've never seen before and cannot deal with - those sort of sockpuppets stand out a mile and would have never made a difference anyway. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it’s more likely that you are actually Michael L. Vincent and these “trolls” are friends of yours. Don’t you find it suspicious that Storyrates1987 vandalized UserRockpocket’s talk page with the words “leave our page alone!” [5].Also what advantage would Storyrates1987 get from randomly leaving a message on your talk page saying “Got your message, happy to help save your article. David is here with me and in addition to voting we'll make a couple extra copies of the article so they can't get them all”? Also, if you’re not Michael L. Vincent how did you get the rights to that photo? You’ll forgive me if I find your messages denying knowledge of such canvassing slightly improbable. . . --S.dedalus (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok this is getting very negative, and feel like I am being victimized here. I got the picture from this page : http://www.last.fm/music/Michael+Vincent. Trolls are in in to start havoc and get off on stuff like trying to frame people. Think about it, who would write me a message like that on a pubic page where everyone can clearly see it... TROLLS. If you look at my record, you will see I have been arguing for this article using only the facts. That is all I need. Perhaps it was you?Gregg Potts (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that’s where you got the photo from then it appears to be a copyright violation anyway (WP:IUP). I’ll tag it as such. --S.dedalus (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Passing evidence of notability, most of which is notability by assertion (which, unless things have changed here recently, doesn't count). Also, I posted a notice on WP:ANI - here // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 23:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

I was asked to run a checkuser here as there's some very obvious disruptive sock-puppetry going on. For the AfD reviewing admin, the following accounts are  Confirmed as being one editor:

  1. Storyrates1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  2. Unitdealt1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  3. Mainquick1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  4. Clubtaken1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  5. Girlgirlgirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

- Alison ❤ 23:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All except Storyrates1987 have been indefblocked for violating the sockpuppet policy. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly. Girlgirlgirl was blocked indef. for vandalism back on February 19. Corvus cornixtalk 23:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And User:Yeargyro1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another sock. Corvus cornixtalk 23:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me state clearly here now, as there has been some confusion; Gregg Potts (talk · contribs) is Red X Unrelated to the confirmed socks above and has not been implicated in any abusive sock-puppetry whatsoever - Alison ❤ 18:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing?

Per these discussions, it appears that User:Greg Potts has been canvassing for votes. Corvus cornixtalk 23:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, see the discussion above. :) --S.dedalus (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • response -Myself and this article delete debate have been victimized by a TROLL(S). The offending message was written on my public message page, for it to be found, and my subsequent accusation. I find this very troubling, and feel helpless to fight against it. The only person I contacted was Eastmain, and asked him to take a look at it. THAT IS ALL! I have been arguing for the merits of this article, against a huge deluge of negativity, accusation of bias, ownership, and now canvassing. I am quite frankly tired of it. This stops now or I am leaving this debate.Gregg Potts (talk) 00:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • response - I feel Gregg has made a strong case for himself. While I feel his arguments in this discussion have been both stubborn and wrong, I also feel that the witless vandalism, like the grotesque "racism" accusation made by an IP some while back, do not sound like him in any way. I say we assume good faith and go on about the discussion without accusations. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While the socks are disappointing as they could ruin the future of this article altogether, I don't think the socks are Greg at all. It seems Greg has had a level head throughout this whole debate. Although, and no offense, but I am curious to know who GregPotts was before this article creation, just seems very knowledgeable of wiki jargon and guidelines for this being his first and only article edited after opening the account on Feb 22 -- maybe just edited as an anon before which is fine of course, but I can't help but wonder. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 00:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • response Actually I'll take that as a compliment. As a contemporary music nut, this is my first crack at writing a wiki article and I took the time to figure out how to do it. There was a learning curve, but all the information is there, and I have been learning as I go. I decided to add this page because wiki seemed to be missing many (IMO) notable living Canadian composers and performers. After adding the article I was certainly not expecting this huge debate, not to mention being FRAMED as a Jim Henson of 'sock-puppeteers', (a wiki term new to me). You'll are a lively bunch I'll give you that!Gregg Potts (talk) 01:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad, because it is a compliment and I hope this ordeal doesn't discourage you in editing. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 01:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well, I have very grave concerns about how this debate has progressed; however since the sock puppetry and personal attacks seems to be resolved for the time being there is no harm done. To be fair we have no reason to believe that Gregg has personally used sockpuppets at any time. Unless there are further incidents I suggest we place our focus back on the article. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Irrespective of GregPotts' past incarnation (or lack therefore), his account is currently a WP:SPA. His first action was a spurious tagging of Michael Vincent (with a clear claim of notability) for speedy deletion [6] (presumably to make way for the creation of this page, his second edit [7]) and pretty much every edit since has been defending his article. That said, if he or anyone else has a good reason it should be kept, then that should be heard, whether it is his first of 10, 000th edit. I suggest we let those who wish to express an opinion do so (as long as they do so politely) and leave the closing admin to draw his or her own conclusions about the motivation of the contributions. If it is deleted, Gregg can put this down to experience. Rockpocket 01:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week delete. Sadly I think this article should be deleted as there really aren't enough reliable and reputable sources that actually mention Michael Vincent. My suspicion is that the information presented on the page is accurate and true but as there are no verifiable references (other than the composers own website) that directly link the composer to the works mentioned than really wikipedia can't include the information. I would also like to say that I am somewhat appalled at the behavior of several people in this debate. Sock puppetry by new users is often a result of disrespectful and unkind behavior by over zealous and rightouesly superior wikipedia editors, which in this case I think sums up the behavior of several of the above mentioned comments. A little kindness and care in the way you phrase your arguements can often prevent other users from resorting to desperate measures because they feel victimised.Nrswanson (talk) 02:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sign of actual real-world impact or notice. --Calton | Talk 14:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Voceditenore above. His Looking Further comment did not demonstrate enough significance. Canuckle (talk) 00:40, 2 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_L._Vincent&oldid=1140154167"