Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Emile

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. The discussion below appears to have been subject to significant sock/meat puppetry--I'll file a request for checkuser this afternoon for confirmation--and so I've discounted all but the original arguments presented by that user. After doing so, it is clear that the consensus is to delete based on a lack of significant coverage in unrelated sources. --jonny-mt 03:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Emile

Jonathan Emile (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Insufficient notability: despite apparent coverage in one notable media outlets (CTV), most coverage seems to be of the human interest story type and not related to music notability. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

How can this article be edited to be conserved? What souceing would preserve it. please. Thanks. --Ilecity (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that it can be. The singer hasn't yet done anything that meets our notability guidelines for music. Singers are usually considered notable if they've charted a single, released multiple major-label albums, or have otherwise gained significant mainstream media attention (i.e. not just one CTV source). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with you if it were not for the fact that artist Mr. Emile works with other artists listed on wikipedia that have not released single on a major label as singers.--Ilecity (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Just working with other notable artists doesn't make you notable themselves. Also, please read WP:WAX -- existence of similar pages doesn't justify the existence of one page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I think this artist is on the margins of notability. We could wait a year or two to see if he develops a broader reputation and then revisit this. I'm putting this article on my watch list to track it. Mattnad (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I just read the music notability guidelines. Don't think he's there yet. Mattnad (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks Ten Pound. I read what you suggested. Can you look back at the article and tell me if you still feel it needs to be deleted. It seems to be in line with the report and various articles.--Ilecity (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Meets Basic criteria of WP:BIO. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per DoubleBlue. I also added an additional reference from the Montreal Gazette. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Seems to not meet WP:NOTABILITY, among others. I don't think that being a cancer survivor (while amazing and wondering) is inherently notable. --Sharkface217 04:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Though I agree with your second statement, to avoid personal bias, I check and see that he has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, thus he is notable and, more importantly, a Verifiable, NPOV, NOR article can be written. DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Based on notability guidelines for music, he's not there yet. Sure being known for surviving cancer is nice, but there are probably thousands of people who have had news coverage about that. Being mentioned in the press as part of a human interest story is not on its own enough. Per WP:MUSIC, he'll need to achieve relevant milestones before an article is justified.Mattnad (talk) 12:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Based on notability guidelines for music he Meets Basic criteria of WP:BIO. He has a Verifiable, Verifiable, NPOV, NORso the article must stay. Surviving cancer is not his major claim. The news story is as much music critique of a developing star as it is a human interest piece. The CTV piece coupled with the reference articles in Montreal Gazette & The Concordian Concordia suggest he is a pioneer and innovator that region. Relevant references exist, though milestones are not yet listed.(See DoubleBlue & Paul Erik) --MotionMan45 (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
"developing star"? Well, that remains to be seen. There could be that potential, and you might be a fan, but we ought to be more neutral in our assessments here. Mattnad (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Based on notability guidelines. I added an additional reference from the Montreal Community Contact. Whether or not he may or may not be a star, his story is well documented -- unique, verifiable and notable.--Whordwind (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - seriously, I have more press and I'm not even trying to be a big rapper. I wouldn't dream of having a wikipedia article until I had achieved significantly more press than what's been added to the article. Emile looks like a smalltime, local guy who's trying to bootstrap his rep via wikipedia. He isn't covered in the usual music data sources like www.allmusic.com. Also, to the admin who reviews this, looks like there are a few new wikipedians who have only this article to their credit voting here. Bruno23 (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It's irrelevant whether you dream of having a wiki article or not. It's also irrelevant whether the voters are new users. Wikipedia is not a beuarocracatic hierarchy, its a factual database & encyclopedia. It belongs the world, it is current and it is free. Rhetoric and slander are really not appreciated. Neutrality is much appreciated. If you feel this person does not meet WP:BIO or has no verifiable sources, please offer and a well structure and intelligent argument based upon the rules of Wikipedia. If you have notable sources and are a notable individual, please create a page. The same logic applies for you: read WP:WAX. Thank You.Whordwind (talk) 03:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Easy there. Please see wp:civil. I think his point is that there's a threshold that Emile hasn't met. Also an observation that new editors have been focusing on this article may be an oblique reference to a coordinated campaign for the Emile article. See sock and meat puppetry. Mattnad (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense Mattnad. Still the sock Sock puppetry would only be an issue if the arguments were erroneous. They don't seem to be. Its seem Bruno is the 'Un-Civil' one. Look at his user page.70.82.224.27 (talk) 12:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Sock puppetry is actually a pretty serious issue for Wikipedia. Although you may agree with the arguments in favor of keeping the article, since this is a quasi vote, it could be a problem (if there's genuine sock-puppetry). I think what we have here is a difference of opinion on whether any news coverage means someone is notable. Some feel there's enough here, others don't, so the opinions on both sides matter. As for Bruno23, well, his talk page doesn't say a lot about his civility. It shows others being uncivil to him. I did look at his contributions and they seem like they're more or less in line with wp:civil.Mattnad (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. He might not be big but he Meets Basic criteria of WP:BIO for sure. His Stiory and style are notable.99.243.219.77 (talk) 05:19, 3 April 2008 (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.