Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roadkill Bill Jabanoski

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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-23 08:52Z

[edit] Roadkill Bill Jabanoski

Roadkill Bill Jabanoski (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Nom – fails WP:BIO, WP:V, and WP:RS. While the subject appears to have published one book and several CD's, the article contains no independent reviews of any of this work from any reliable source. All sources in this article are self-references to the subject's website or to a music sharing website to which any musician can upload music. The one Amazon reference does not satisfy the requirement for an independent review. Lastly, the "reviews" of this article which were posted on its talk page come from single-edit special purpose accounts. "Roadkill Bill Jabanoski" generates all of 28 g-hits. I would have nominated it for a speedy delete, but the subject does claim notability – so here we are. Feel free to exercise WP:SNOW if you like. It won't hurt my feelings, and it might save us all a bit of time. Rklawton 04:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If this AfD passes, please also consider deleting the following images:
Thanks. Rklawton 04:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

DISCUSSION: FROM ROADKILLHEADS.

The above user "Rklawton; Rklawton" who complains about our article seems to be completely oblivious to American "underground" music and writing, followers of whom are well aware of who Roadkill Bill Jabanoski is. WE, a group of fans, not the artist himself, posted this article in an attempt to add an entry into Wikipedia about an artist who has had a major influence on hundreds of thousands of people and to provide helpful links and information about him. As we work and do not have 24/7 to spend in front of our computers, as evidently "Rklawton" does, this article is still a work in progress, more details of which will be added as we are able to find the time. If Wikipedia requires that we document every sentence, provide more independent reviews, etc., we will do so as we proceed. If, however, Wikipedia only chooses to post articles on Britney Spears and the like, your "Encyclopedia" is going to become nothing more than a week's worth of "Access Hollywood" shows. However, if you wish to include reliable information about artists that, while not mainstream, have huge cult followings, then you will keep the article, allow us to complete it, and not threaten to erase it every time someone who happens not to have heard of the subject of the article decides to tell you to delete it, then you will be a real, "complete" encyclopedia. If you don't choose to be this, then stop advertising yourself as such all over the internet.

BAIT AND SWITCH

WIKIPEDIA IS A CON ARTIST WEBSITE

NEW ENTRY FROM JAMES L. GORDON

BAIT AND SWITCH! My name is James L. Gordon. I signed up for an account on Wikipedia, copied down my password, and answered your "check E-mail address" E-mail. I also sent you a $50 donation in the mail because I loved the fact that you had articles on my favorite artists like Chuck E. Weiss and even more so, Roadkill Bill Jabanoski. Now I return to the page for Roadkill Bill (Rklawton: 28 g-hits) and find that you've destroyed the artwork (there was a really great concert poster heading the article beforehand) and are happily in the process of deleting the whole article. I suppose the Chuck E. Weiss (Rklawton: 46,000 g-hits<) and Paul Westerberg (Rklawton: 500,000+ g-hits) ones will be next. What's more, when I tried to "Log On" to your website, double checking my password numerous times, I find that I no longer seem to even have an account with you! As a lawyer by trade, I know that this is what con artists call the "Bait and Switch." You solicit contributions by temporarily posting articles, then remove them, and then don't even claim that your contributors have an account. "There's a sucker born every minute," so the quotation goes, and I certainly was one. I would stop payment on my check, but I like to think of myself as more honorable certainly than your firm. I will NEVER use Wikipedia again, I will tell my employees, business associates, and friends not to do so either. Playing con games with people is both dispicable and just plain wrong. --75.74.180.49 06:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)James L. Gordon

  • Too bad, so sad. Delete JuJube 09:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete A google for "Bill Jabanoski" [1] produces a few hits; Amazon pages, his own website etc; not the multiple independent reliable sources we need. I'll happily change my opinion if such sources are produced, but for now this feels a lot like WP:SPAM/WP:COI. Mr Gordon, as a lawyer, don't you know that making spurious public written accusations of criminality is probably a bad idea? -- IslaySolomon | talk 10:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and give Mr Gordon his $50 back. No independent sources to attest to the artist's notability, or to the fact that he has "had a major influence on hundreds of thousands of people". Do these cult fans not have Internet access? ... discospinster talk 13:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep Nominator and other deceptively misrepresent google hits, requiring nicknames and name in that order, eliminating those about Bill Jabanoski, known as Roadkill (Bill) and the like. Gene Nygaard 15:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Question - So how many g-hits did you find? And what does this have to do with failing WP:BIO, WP:V, WP:RS, and possibly WP:COI? See also WP:AGF. Rklawton 15:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per discospinster. Refund if possible. D Mac Con Uladh 15:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO, WP:V, and WP:RS. I'm not sure I believe the "James L. Gordon" story about the $50, but even if it's true Mr. Gordon should be aware that Wikipedia does NOT accept money to write articles or to retain them, and the very idea of doing so would be disgusting to the vast majority of Wikipedia editors. Furthermore, no other reputable encyclopedia would accept money to include an article either (try offering Britannica 50 bucks to include an article on "Roadkill Bill"... you'd be laughed out of their offices!) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hey, was that a legal threat up there? Cool! Anyway, call it a hunch, but I think we're being screwed with, and that this is someone's idea of a funny prank. I'm sure someone made that article (and those comments on the talk page) knowing it was going to get AfD'd. Oh yeah, no sources, original research, copyrighted images, yadda yadda....--UsaSatsui 16:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO and or WP:MUSIC by end of this AfD Alf photoman 17:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:N guidelines. If ROADKILLHEADS (talk · contribs) was under the impression that his $50 gave him the license to publish what he wanted on Wikipedia, then he misunderstands both Wikipedia and the word donation. That said, if the Wikimedia Foundation has a donation return policy, it may be here someplace. Obviously our opinion here has nothing to do with what the Foundation can legally or operationally do. --Dhartung | Talk 18:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth, the foundation makes it pretty clear that people can't demand their donation back. To quote the policy: "The donor intends the gift to be irrevocable and, therefore, relinquishes the right to reclaim the gift or any unused remainder." So that's that. If Bill Jabanoski is really tring to get himself into the music biz, I can't imagine why he'd want his name attached to this pathetic attempt to squeeze $50 out of a registered charity organisation, and I can only guess what music execs, producers, and potential CD buyers will think of it when they come a-Googlin'... oh well... Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I suspect the claimed donation is more pettifoggery, but thanks for finding that. --Dhartung | Talk 23:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

KEEP

IN RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS POST BY STARBLIND, Andrew Lenahan

The entry from "ROADKILLHEADS" above makes it clear that they, a group of fans, posted this article thinking they were providing what they believed to be useful information about a somewhat well-known underground artist and that this article was a work in progress. So it is you, Starblind, who are making false accusations when you state that:

1. The artist himself had anything to do with submitting this article.

2. The "ROADKILLHEADS" ever suggested that they paid any contribution to Wikipedia to publish this article. Rather, it was another writer on this discussion page, signing himself James L. Gordon who, I agree very hot-headedly and wrongly, suggested that he had been cheated out of his donation because he assumed Wikipedia was providing information on his favorite artists.

Perhaps you should take some time to actually read the previous posts rather than only skimming them before also making wrong allegations, Mr. Lenahan (Starblind).

3, As for Mr. Jabanoski trying to use this article to "break into the music business," I highly doubt that the artist even knows that this article exists. You are also almost thirty years too late in your advice to Mr. Jabanoski. His first record was released in 1979, and he has developed a substantial following both as a musician and a writer, particularly over the past two decades.

I personally find what there is of the article to be informative and to provide good links, and I believe it should be retained and that Wikipedia should allow "ROADKILLHEADS" to complete it as they requested in their post. If there are documentation problems (which I really don't see. Most of the article provides simply common knowledge information to anyone who has researched the artist, and it does not quote without documentation), then I believe that Wikipedia should work with "ROADKILLHEADS" in solving these. This is just my opinion as a frequent user of Wikipedia and someone who enjoys Jabanoski's work. --75.74.180.49 20:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Tom Carter. New York.

  • Delete unless reliable sources are provided; the folks who are opining keep should really focus on showing us proof of this artist's notability under the WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO guidelines, as well as all the others linked above, if they really want the article kept. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. Are you sure you're a lawyer, "Mr. Gordon"? You sure do whine alot. dposse 21:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. If the article satisfied either one of those, it wouldn't take two pages of wikilawyering to prove. ShaleZero 21:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, no refund. per all of the above. Veinor (talk to me) 21:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for lack of non-trivial sources. If Mr Jabanoski is 30 years in the business and there's no independent publication about him, he's not notable enough for Wikipedia. --Huon 23:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Note - just for the record: Gordon and Carter (above) are using the same IP address. Not that their writing style and formatting aren't identical or don't already match in style the two "reviews" on the article's talk page. Rklawton 23:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable, and methinks most lawyers would read the fine print before paying any money. Jerry lavoie 00:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. This is the exact reason by the standards exist.--Dacium 00:55, 20 February 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.