Talk:Roy D. Mercer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Roy D. Mercer article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
To-do: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:

    [edit] Plagiarism of John Bean?

    Shouldn't the fact that RD Mercer is basically a direct ripoff of John Bean (aka Leroy Mercer) be mentioned? See [[1]] and [[2]]. Dubc0724 14:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

    • That's irrelevant to this article. Steviedpeele 01:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't see how. RD Mercer wouldn't exist if he didn't have someone to copy. Dubc0724 01:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
        • And the person Mercer copied might have not been around if he [Bean] hadn't copied someone too. Perhaps, Mercer wouldn't be around if it weren't for John Bean, but I don't think it's necessary in the article. Steviedpeele 20:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

    I think Leroy Mercer is very relevant. If you listen to both sets of tapes/CDs, it's clear that Brent Douglas was very directly copying John Bean. Additional links:

    --A. B. (talk) 04:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

    This was initially posted on my talk page regarding this matter

    It's common knowledge in parts of the Southeast that Roy D. Mercer got his schtick from a tape made by a fellow named John Bean that spread around the southeast. I thought this was the point of Wikipedia to be able to dissmeinate ACCURATE information.

    —Bobbystone 20:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    If it is common knowledge in the southeast then someone should have written something about it in a newspaper or magazine, some kind of source that is considered reliable. Yes Wikipedia does strive to be accurate, but part of that accuracy is providing sources, so that people can verify that what you say is in fact accurate. The five pillars of wikipedia explain a lot of this, including the point of wikipedia. - Optigan13 20:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    The metropulse appears to be a reliable source, so if you wish to include this criticism then cite a source and still try to follow the neutral point of view. - Optigan13 20:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    I've stubbed the article as it was wholly unsourced. Irishguy was correct in removing the criticism. While the metropulse article is reliable in terms of being a real paper, it does not directly mention Roy Mercer vs Leroy Mercer with any kind of comparison. It only mentions that there was a John Bean, and very briefly mentions Leroy. What I meant by neutral point of view(NPOV) was that your criticism tone needs to be a little more neutral tone. You should also let the facts speak for themselves. If you can point out that John Bean was doing Leroy Mercer long before Brent Douglas was doing Roy D Mercer, a reader will be able to make that connection. I'm sorry if I confused you by characterizing the Metro Pulse article as reliable. While it does appear to be a reliable newspaper, it also has to support the assertions you make. Optigan13 04:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Notability

    Definitely notable; 72 hits in Google News' archive:

    I'd add some to the article, but I'm traveling. --A. B. (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Although Roy D. Mercer isn't per se a recording artist, I would think that anyone who has had multiple releases of anything on a major label would be notable enough. Mercer has had nearly 20 albums on Virgin or Capitol -- so I would think that, by an extension of WP:MUSIC's criterion that multiple releases on a major label generally equals notability, Roy must be notable. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)