Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nolan Stolz (2nd nomination)

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. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nolan Stolz

Nolan Stolz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

After significant time with a notability tag and multiple Afd's, Mr. Stolz's notability has still not been determined. While clearly an active artist, Mr. Stolz fails to meet the criteria for musicians at WP:Notability and therefore his article should be deleted. SingCal 05:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I see how it works! I just learned something =D Yeah, I removed the original AFD and Nobility, because it seemed to be just plain vandalous, but now I see that we really should get the nobility first, just to play it safe. I'm gonna have to side with Sing and say Delete. Tyler Warren ^{(talk/contribs)} 06:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Not only does the article fail to meet Wikipedia's notability standards (per WP:Music) but it also appears to be an auto-biographical entry, which violates Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines regarding conflict of interest (See talk page). It is quite likely that the author of this article used IP 76.103.4.32 to vandalize other articles and to remove tags from this article without discussion. Sabian220 11:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - although the majority of the facts on the article are referenced by various sources, it is too difficult to maintain. please delete this article Styxmahler 16:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Meaning no disrespect to the author of this article and regardless of how well referenced it is, an article authored by its subject is a serious conflict of interest(WP:COI). Smoip 01:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - The article was written by Styxmahler, who's real name *dun dun dun* is "Nolan Stolz". I know this because his MySpace name is Nolan Stolz and the name on the emails he sent me asking me "to stop discussing how he wrote an article about himself", is Nolan Stolz. This should be deleted as it is self-promotion. [Tyler] ^{(talk/contribs)} 04:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - number 4 in WP:BAND criteria for composers. "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." Listed in the article's composer section, 2nd place in an international competition. 137.49.67.12 00:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• I hate to say it, but that's still not enough for me. Although the wording is vague, I take "major competition" to be something along the lines of the Pulitzer, Masterprize, Grammy or other such award. A contest hosted by a specialized, regional organization is not a major music competition. Second place in it is not one of the "cases" mentioned above, and does not, in my eyes, constitute notability. While it's an impressive accomplishment, it's not akin to being a runner-up for a Grawemeyer. The notability guidelines are in place specifically to limit the number of musician-related articles, and a good addition to Wikipedia should be obviously notable, not disputably notable. SingCal 02:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - It is interesting that User:137.49.67.12 cites this information from the article a mere 20 minutes after that same user added that information to the article himself. It is also interesting that this IP has never edited wikipedia before today, and today made 3 edits: 1. Adding the competition info to the Nolan Stolz article, 2. Posting on talk:Nolan Stolz and 3. Posting on this page. (The latter two edits are identical). Most interesting of all is that Nolan Stolz's username, Styxmahler is currently blocked from editing wikipedia for a one-week period because of disruptive edits. It is very, very likely that user:styxmahler is now using User:137.49.67.12 as a sock puppet.

Furthermore, to prove SingCal's point that the competition in question is not a major music competition, one need not look any further than the competition results page, which not only states that the contest only received 15 entries, but that "one of the composers was only 15".[1] Also, Stolz's piece won Second Prize, not second place, because there was a tie for the First Prize. This means that Stolz's submission actually came in third place out of fifteen entries. That simply isn't notable enough to justify inclusion in Wikipedia. Sabian220 04:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course I agree with the above assertions. However, I think it's fairly unlikely that styxmahler is using socks on his article. Nolan Stolz, who uses the styxmahler label, has said multiple times that he wants this article deleted, mainly out of frustration with the controversy around it. My inclination is that he would likely refrain from editing his article and prolonging the process. There's still a possibility, but since there have been a great deal of accusation regarding sockpuppetry going on let's avoid jumping to conclusions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SingCal (talk • contribs) 04:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly that we should be careful not to let accusations fly willy-nilly, but something just came to my attention. Stolz's myspace page states that he currently attends the Hartt School in Hartford, CT. [2] I did a quick IP address lookup for 137.49.67.12, and found that it originates from (you guessed it) Hartford, CT. [3] Sabian220 05:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. There are problems with COI, but the current article appears to meet WP:BAND easily. Stolz is in two notable bands (Art Rock Circus and Swinging Popsicle) and there are multiple reliable references, so he meets WP:BAND's 1st criterion. Yes, needs clean-up and there may be issues around Styxmahler's edits, but on the face of it the subject of the article meets notability. Bondegezou 12:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Yes, but he made an article about himself and wishes for it to be deleted. Check the talk page for picture proof that Styxmahler's real name is Nolan Stolz. He messaged me on MySpace to tell me not to discuss this on this articles talk page. -.- [Tyler] ^{(talk/contribs)} 13:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - With all due respect to Bondegezou, you are claiming that because Stolz is in an ensemble that meets one of the criterion under WP:BAND, his self-authored personal page meets this criterion as well. Unfortunately this is not the case. The UCLA Marching Band meets the criteria for a wikipedia entry (UCLA_Band), but that certainly doesn't mean that each member of the ensemble meets the criteria individually. Stolz promotes himself as a composer first and a drummer second, but fails to individually meet the criteria in either role. Sabian220 15:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm saying that because Stolz is in two notable bands and there are multiple reliable sources about him, then a page about him is notable under WP:BAND. Yes, the current page looks too much like a self-authored personal page, sofixit. The UCLA Marching Band analogy is obviously inappropriate. Bondegezou 10:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I did some more exploration regarding those two bands, and I don't think they're enough. The Swinging Popsicle article says Mr. Stolz only played with them for one concert... he wasn't a part of the band, which is the stipulation given at WP:MUSIC. As for Art Rock Circus, there's no mention of them on the ProgRock label website (looks like the band itself never released a record on that label, just individuals) and Tributary records looks to be a pet project of ARC, so they're not a notable label; that criteria (5) looks to be the only one the article about ARC even attempts to assert. So even if you are to make the argument that Stolz is notable by association, I'm say the notability of the primary sources is just too questionable to justify keeping the article. SingCal 00:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment If his involvement with The Swinging Popsicle is minimal and Art Rock Circus are minor, that does undermine the keep argument. However, he still appears to qualify under WP:BAND's first criterion, that there are multiple, reliable articles about him. Bondegezou 11:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Mr. Stolz actually has performed with Swinging Popsicle more than once for a total of eight dates for 3 different occasions: Swinging Popsicle's American premier in 2006, in Tokyo, Japan in 2006 and various concert dates in Swinging Popsicle's return to USA in 2007. Rebelphi 12:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment A run-down of the cited sources on the page according to criterion 1 of WP:Music:

1. No usable information - trivial. 2. Biographical/resume material, taken to be advertising for the musician. 3. No mention of Stolz on page. 4. Unavailable but presumed notable - one notable source. 5. Not directly about Nolan Stolz, but about an ensemble in which he participated - non-valid for criteria 1. 6. Trivial. 7. Not directly about Stolz. 8. No mention of Stolz on page. 9. Trivial. 10. Cited above, advertising for the musician. 11. Not directly about Stolz. 12. Not directly about Stolz. 13. Not directly about Stolz. 14. Not directly about Stolz. I only see one non-trivial article about the article's subject. WP:Music requires multiple ones, so I remain unconvinced regarding his notability. SingCal 22:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Following SingCal's analysis, I withdraw my keep position and will lapse into ambivalence. Bondegezou 08:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't know if it is WP:COI, but currently the article has enough materials and sources to be a valid WP article. This is funny. The first editor (author) wishes the article to be deleted after several editors involved here. So why did you create it? Now, it's too late. Author cannot asks WP:CSD because other editors have contributed in. The article is now have passed WP:NOTABILITY. :-) — Indon (reply) — 15:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Regardless of how well-sourced and informative the article is, it still fails to meet the standards set forth at WP:Music, which is the notability rubric we should be using for this topic. If the argument is that Mr. Stolz's notability arises from his participation in notable bands, than this article should be a redirect to one of those bands. But again, this article is about him as a non-mainstream composer/performer, and according to that criteria he just isn't notable enough. SingCal 17:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Notice how in the recent edit by Styxmahler, he went right for my comments and removed them. Apparently I'm not supposed to talk about him making a page about himself on Wikipedia, but I told him if he removed my comments I'd warn him, then report him, which I am doing right now. [Tyler] ^{(talk/contribs)} 05:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete As far as I can see, there is considerable evidence that a) subject of the article isn't notable enough, b) he authored the page himself, and c) sock-puppeted behind an anonymous IP address to further edit the article after his main account got banned. If you want to argue point a) on the ground that because people edited the page, fine. But point b) proves that this article is merely vanity, and the edits that have been done to the page seem to have been relatively small and only removed small pieces of self-fancruft, which, as far as I'm concerned, eliminates any shred of plausibility. Locrian 06:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Might I remind everyone that WP:COI#How to handle conflicts of interest explicitly discourages use of the term "vanity" in discussions about any article, under the general principle of WP:AGF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bondegezou (talk • contribs) 08:04, 25 September 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.