Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Madden

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. --Coredesat 20:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Madden

Bill Madden (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Fails WP:MUSIC, three album releases all on his own label. Almost all editing by two new accounts, both of which only edit Bill Madden. Google search brings up this Bill Madden as top hit, because of URL. Subsequent Bill Maddens are a lawyer, a columnist, an actor, a lecturer - but no-one else talking about the musician. Delete and purge all references (extensive insertion into Wikipedia "List of" articles). Josh Parris#: 06:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:MUSIC — Currently on rotation on national TV - MTVU [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Racewayjr (talk • contribs) 12:10, 11 January 2007 - 1st edit (sockpuppet?)
• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. —ShadowHalo 06:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 11:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Edison 15:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The article fooled me. I would have thought he was more notable based on a quick skim. TonyTheTiger 20:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC.-- danntm ^T _C 23:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V and above. SkierRMH 05:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:V and WP:MUSIC. This is my first article on Wikipedia and, with all due respect, I worked my arse off researching and writing. In addition, I adhered to Wikipedia rules and standards. User:TonyTheTiger noted, “The article fooled me.” Fooled you? How did it fool you? Please elucidate. User:SkierRMH said, “WP:V and above.” Please identify what exactly is not verifiable. It is extremely discouraging to be a first time contributer and feel obligated to respond to what appear to be weak arguments and hastely developed conclusions, influenced by peer opinion. I’m open to debate and, if necessary, I will provide you with my research. I don’t want to bore you with another article here expressing my frustration. However, I do kindly request your guidance. I am proud of my first article and don’t want to see it removed. Thank you for your time and anticipated assistance. Windwall 23:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  Encyclopaedias are about notable subjects; WP:MUSIC defines what Wikipedia considers notable is in the case of musicians etc. The article as it stands does not assert any of the points in WP:MUSIC. Further suggestions are the editing history and the lack of independent, verifiable sources. I understand how hard it is to work up a good bio, which your article is a good start towards. But the subject of the article doesn't seem to be notable. Josh Parris#: 06:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  Your point, "The article as it stands does not assert any of the points in WP:MUSIC" is well taken. However, this is easily remedied (chalk it up to ignorance of a novice). I will merely modify the article so that prima facie and on its face asserts the relevant points in WP:MUSIC; specifically, points 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 in the criteria for musicians and ensembles and point 1 in the criteria for composers and lyricists. Quite frankly, I'm exhausted at the moment (just got back from class where the subject was ironically "burden of proof" after a full day of work). As you can imagine, I'm not up to digging up the research at the moment; however, I will update this information over the weekend. In addition, my next article, the Independent Movement, highly relevant to the achievements of this notable independant artist, as well as other notable indies, such as Devandrah Bernhart and Willy Mason, et all, will be highlighted. Apparently, I will need to prematurely post that article to further substantiate my work! Windwall 22:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  I commented earlier that I would make the revisions to my article this weekend. I'm a huge stickler to my word so just in case anyone is remotely concerned, I'm posting a comment here to let whoever cares or may have an interest that I'm still working on my research. I didn't get done as quickly as I thought I would. Perhaps this exercise is creating a better writer in me. In any case, I hope to have the substantiations requested by midnight tonight so I can keep my word. Windwall 20:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

  Not quite midnight; however, I'm close. I have rewritten the article. Quite frankly, I'm uncertain what to do next as I don't want to violate any more rules (it's not fun being rejected). I researched Wikipedia's rules and here's what I gleamed as to what I need to do next: apparently, I need to add cleanup to my article, then I am free to make the edits to my article to address the points raised, then sit and wait. Correct? Again, your guidance is appreciated. I must say, writing articles for Wikipedia is much more complicated than I ever contemplated. It takes much more time and energy than I think I have at this time in my life. But I'll give it my best shot. Please take my ignorance into consideration from this point forward. Thank you for your patience. Windwall 01:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  You're making good headway in the structure of the article. I've been looking through it and I still can't see text supporting points 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 in the criteria for musicians and ensembles - perhaps I've missed it? Is it in footnotes? The article itself ought to read like "Tom McExample is most famous for setting fire to pants while still being worn by the President of Lithuania; the resulting burns led to the Lithuania-Madagascar war of 1698." so the reader is immediately told why they ought to be interested in Tom. Josh Parris 23:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  Yes, the references to substantiate points 5, 8, 9, and 10 in the criteria for musicians and ensembles are in the footnotes, as outlined here:

  Point 5: Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable. Please see Contributing Members, each of these individuals has made a significant contribution.

  Point 8: Has won or placed in a major music competition. Please see footnotes identified as nos. 10, 15, and 25.

  Point 9: Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show. Please see footnotes identified as nos. 6 (MTVU Main Playlist), 7 (MuchMusic), 16 (MTV The Real World Boston), and 17 (MTV The Real World Boston).

  Point 10: Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. Please see footnote identified as no. 37.

  Point 7: Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno or Mercury Music Award. As for this point, I do not know if this qualifies as major but it is noted here for you nevertheless, please see footnote identified as no. 25.

  Regarding your recommendation as to how the article itself should read, I will revise accordingly. However, I have to work all week and I have classes every night. Due to my schedule and workload in school, I won't have the opportunity to make these revisions until the weekend. Thank you for your continued patience and guidance.

  On another note that is relevant, I see the deletes and feel highly discouraged. With all due respect, Madden is more notable than some of his contemporaries who are listed in Wikipedia. I have done significant research these past two days and I have noted artists that don't have as much information substantiated as the work I've had to dig up. I don't want to single any of those artists out on this board because that, in my opinion, is disrespectful of the significance of art and prefer not to provide this information. It just does't seem fair or just. The fact that there is no intelligent discussion I feel gives Wikipedians a negative light. It is disappointing that people do not join in our discussion and simply hide behind per nom without elucidating why my article should be deleted. Windwall 23:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom-DESU 03:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Cool Hand Luke 23:13, 15 January 2007 (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.