Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim McGowan

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, ignoring sockpuppets Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 23:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tim McGowan

Overly illustrated page about a musician/composer. Creation by McMusic suggests vanity. Notability check please before I userfy it. -- RHaworth 09:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I wouldn't even bother with userfying it. It's an invitation to bring it back. --Nlu 11:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as NN, vanity. There is a profile of him on [1]. The home page of that site says, "Clear Channel has partnered with GarageBand to showcase the best undiscovered talent on our radio station websites." He lists nine CDs, but the only three I can find label information for were self-published (the "Tim McGowan" label and the "McMusic" label). Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC that I can see. - Dalbury (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete Just because the home page for Clear Channel states it is partnered with Garageband to showcase unsigned artists is irrelevant...Does that mean every artist listed on Clear Channel is unsigned? NO! Google "Tim McGowan" He is all over the place, get your facts right 1st! Overly illustrated!! Because someone showed the initiative to brighten the page up and be informative at the same time with album cover pictures and logos? This artist deserves to be listed. Have any of you heard of Kitaro or Arkenstone either??? Don't know where you got your "half of the story" release info from but his music is released by McMusic International (edit by McMusic (talk · contribs))
• Comment. McMusic International does not qualify as a major label or one of the more important indie labels, as defined in WP:MUSIC. - Dalbury [[User_talk:Dalbury|(talk)]] 20:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment In your opinion...and who are you to state this? Uncle Sam? Important enough to have released over a dozen albums from several artists...be listed on the All music guide, Amazon in several countries including Japan - France - USA - UK, Yahoo music, AOL music, Napster, MSN, Sony Connect and dozens more!! His music has been in international/national radio station Top 10 lists for over 12 months, sometimes 4 - 5 different tracks simultaneously in the same Top 10 list. You would have learned this if you had researched properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.218.167.77 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 16 November 2005
• Kill it with fire. Blatant self-promotion. If Mr. McGowan is indeed found to satisfy WP:MUSIC, it'd be best to start over from scratch from a neutral point of view. This is an ad, not an encyclopedia article. android79 23:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This is all moot anyway – much of the material in this article is a straight copy-and-paste from [2], making this a copyvio. android79 23:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• RE: Kill it with fire "Blatant self-promotion" would be the case if I was indeed Tim McGowan but, Tim McGowan I am NOT!! What do you find offensive about this page? The CD Cover artwork? The Logos? or his promo picture? #1 When Reading about any artist many people like to see the cover artwork...it adds to the collective information about the artists and tells a story in itself. #2 Many people like to see what the artist looks like. #3 Logos are as much a part of an artists identity as #1 & #2. #4. Permission was granted for inclusion of all materials used. Who knows their career history better than the artist himself. You are assured 100% accuracy.

I really don't see what the fuss is all about here. Other than being unfamiliar with the artist in question...Maybe you should broaden your horizon and listen to different genres. New age is a small selective market but thousands of music lovers do appreciate it. I am sorry you don't particulary find the information interesting but many fans do. McMusic

Let's see... McMusic is the music label. Your username is McMusic. How is that not self-promotion? You're promoting an artist on your own label with an ad disguised (poorly) as an encyclopedia article. android79 05:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• So Cynical You my friend are promoting yourself on your page...telling the world your likes dislikes and just how wonderful you think yourself to be. It doesn't matter what I chose to use as a user name it's just a name. Your chose android79...Does this mean you are less than human and lack compassion, understanding and just common sense? The people blocking this page with ridiculous claims at the top are nothing more than vandals themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.154.231.159 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 17 November 2005

• Please note. Android, Encyclopedias can be general, containing articles on topics in many different fields. An encyclopedia also often includes many maps and illustrations, as well as bibliography and statistics. An encyclopedia seeks to discuss each subject in more depth and convey the most relevant accumulated knowledge on that subject. All of which was done in article. By your comment above are we all to take it that all information on the list of musicians and artists listed on Wikipedia are nothing more that ads? Are we to go edit each of them with notices saying they shouldn't be listed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.154.231.159 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 17 November 2005
  • Uh, that's my user page. It's not a part of the encyclopedia. Note that there is no Android79 or (insert my real name here), only User:Android79. Draw whatever conclusions you wish from my choice of username, though I've explained the meaning, such as it is, on my user page. Please refrain from personal attacks. The fact that you chose McMusic as a username indicates you have some relationship with the music label – that was my point. I'm well aware of what an encyclopedia is. I've got no problem with including an article on Mr. McGowan in this encyclopedia if he is shown to meet the criteria for inclusion and if the article is written in a neutral, non-advertising tone. android79 19:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Criteria Met. It says in criteria "is notable if it meets ANY one of the following criteria:" He definately meets several of them, (#1, #2, #3 and #4 immediately jumps out just by visiting his website), if you want you can do the research...The article I wrote is neutral...I did not say he was the best thing since chocolate. I merely described his music for the reader who may never have heard any and wondered what to expect, as in style, if they did. His bio tells the story of what he has done in his musical lifetime so far. How is that an ad? There was no personal attack on your name either, as you put it "Draw whatever conclusions you wish from my choice of username" It was merely a conclusion such as yours on mine. Albeit a wrong one! You say you don't have a problem with Mr McGowan being listed, you can see he meets the criteria, therefore, if you have indeed become an administrator, please put an end to this nonsense and remove any notices and allow this page to be accessed directly without any further obstruction.
  • The article indicates that McGowan's former bands meet criteria #1 and #2; this is an article about McGowan himself. McMusic does not appear to be a major label, so #3 is out. I see no indication of meeting #4. android79 20:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Mr McGowan being the writer and copyright holder of the songs for previous bands he has worked with still entitles him to be considered to the meet the criteria of #1. regardless of who else played an instrument along side him in the recording. As far as #2 goes. I can also confirm that McGowan has toured the UK, several times, and I presume you will agree would be considered a medium size country. #3 and #4. are moot points, one does not have to meet all criteria listed...it states "ANY" should be met.

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.