Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Wigney
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 of the debate was Delete JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Luke Wigney
Non notable person, possible vanity page, Google returns a staggering 8 results top two of which are wikipedia pages. IMDB doesn't list any of the movies he's in or he himself. And when googling his book titles with plus his last name yield 0 results. If a real person, I don't think he is quite notable enough. -- malo (talk)/(contribs) 09:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I repeated Malo's due diligence, with the same result. Either this is a complete hoax, or the works cited are so minor (self-published or unpublished books, unreleased films?) to be inappropriate for Wikipedia. It's puzzling, since it mostly reads like a normal but (ambitious/vanity) bio, but appears to be completely unverifiable. MCB 01:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
So, in order to qualify for a Wiki entry you have to exhibit a strong web-presence - the sort of web presence that this alternative entertainer actively avoids? Or perhaps Wiki is a celebration of purely commercial success i.e. you can't be relevant or well-know with charging an entrance fee?
To think that Carrot Top has a page in a user-defined dictionary, and that Luke Wigney is up for potential deletion is both disturbing and telling.
Either Wiki is a user-defined project, or it is not. This performer may well never appear on network television, but the absolute pleasure he brings his modest audiences is beyond description. We need performers like this to show us what we've been missing.
Perhaps this was a mistake after all... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.139.10 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 22 November 2005
- Please go and check out Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. If you feel that this person can in some way meet the required criteria for inclusion then by all means please post back here and tell us as to which criteria he meets. My goal here is not to delete an article, but rather to gain the community consensus on what is noteworthy and what isn't. -- malo (talk)/(contribs) 19:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
It’s hardly likely that you’re going to find much about Luke Wigney on the internet, that’s kind of the whole point of adding him to Wikipaedia in the first place. If we could pull this information off of a website, why would we be searching Wiki for it?
The idea that a live performer can enjoy cult status without charging money is unusual these days, as is his genuinely successful bid for relative anonymity, but that’s part of the Morningstar charm.
The books won’t turn up on Amazon: they were never priced. Each book was the ticket that let you into the reading room where he performed for the afternoon, reading extracts, taking questions, and generally encouraging the audience with their own creative writing.
Of all the events I have attended in my life, I have never felt so empowered or as inspired as I did walking home from the “Vampire Churches of Newcastle Upon Tyne” book gathering in Leeds.
I don’t know anything about the films, they are shown sometimes by the Halloween Society and other film clubs that I don’t live close enough to join. I imagine they are a similar sort of set up as the book readings though. I’m sure Liz Orange can fill this part in better, being a director.
I don’t think my writing all this is going to convince you of his commitment to alternative entertainment, or even a long list of famous bands that enjoyed their first break under his events, so I leave it to the man himself.
Please read the advice he gives to this fledgling band all the way through (it continues for about 10 posts after the first reply, and gets better and better as he warms to his subject) before deciding whether to delete him or not.
Thank you for the effort you are going to on behalf of a few music-loving bookworms. I do enjoy Wikipaedia, and was thrilled to be able to add to an entry that meant something personal to me. I’m sure I am not the only one who pulled out their old box of vinyl for the music section. I have some more entries, but I’ll wait and see if there is even going to be an article first.
Keep up the good work - when we get broadband I’m going to sign up to be a proof-reader here, if you’ll take me.
Additional comment: the featured article today is an advert for a Gwen Staffani record. Why is this commercial activity deemed relevant, when fan-based articles are considered suspect?
- I can't speak for the feature article, other than the fact that it has verifiable sources for its info. This article on the other hand, well, I personally can't find very much on this Luke Wigney. Hence I don't really know if he exists or if someone is just completely making this up. You might want to check out Wikipedia:Verifiability for more background on the issue. I hope this helps. -- malo (talk)/(contribs) 10:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
The featured article's "verifiable source" is a commercial press release! So, in other words, if Luke Wigney had a website with exactly this information on it, and he had the information cloned by a PR team across several fake fan sites, you would accept this as legitimate? The wiki rules for inclusion seem to imply that if it can't be googled, it doesn't exist in a meaningful way! Google is a commercial venture, designed to return a profit for its shareholders. Almost all of its content is commercial in nature, especially the criteria for high listings. This is precisely the very last place you will find information about this anti-corporate performer.
That's why I added to the original article here: I was hoping that a public access encyclopaedia would be an inclusive and community-minded project that he might approve of himself. It turns out that "User Defined" actually menas "Can it be Googled?".
If I can google it, why would I wiki it?
I'm hoping the original poster will come back and help me out here - if it really is Liz Orange, I'm sure she can do this a hundred times better than I can.
Me again:
“Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by:
…
A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following”
Just about sums up how fans of Luke Wigney describe themselves; I know that I have joked with my husband “I’m off to my cult meeting now…” when going to one of his gigs.
He is responsible in part for kick-starting the revival in live rock music at a local level in the UK. Before he came along with his “anyone can do it” approach, we were stuck with stadium rock or pub rock. Luke’s organisation of the network of medium-sized venues now means that we have a legitmate alternative to commerical cynicism or bands who are just mucking around. Yes the scene is pretty secretive, but with articles like this proposed wiki one, it won't go completely unacknowedged before it inevitably sells-out (or so it seems).
“100 year test -- In 100 years time will anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful?”
When we’re finished listing it, yes, anyone with an interest as to the hows and whys and whens of the British rock music scene at the turn of the millenium will find this information essential, especially as Luke looks set to maintain his low-web profile.
Right! No more from me! Thank you Malo for at least humouring me this far. I really do think that you should include him in the wiki project, or at the very least acknowledge on the front page that original articles without commercial application are unwelcome.
Who in 100 years time is going to type in the word "cool" specifically looking for a Gwen Steffani record????? They might type in "Wigney" or "Morningstar" looking for a bio of the man who helped Brtish alternative music back up on its feet.
- 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.
JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
