Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delboy (musician)

Add links
Page protected
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. Kimchi.sg (talk) 08:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delboy (musician)

Delboy (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable performer whose "the world-touring hit" comes up with 19 Google hits. Repeated requests for sources and for proof, and a speedy deletion tag, have been removed with no sources provided. Note also that the article appears to be an autobiography, but the autobiography and coi tags are repeatedly removed without justification. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Here are some reviews of Burn the Floor bud. Read Up. http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=burn+the+floor+review&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melchiord (talk • contribs) 02:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet to explain the connection with this person that makes these links worth perusing. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And if you do a proper Google search including "delboy", you get two hits, both false positives. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


He's their sound designer. I met him at a show in Boston.

http://www.talkinbroadway.com/regional/dallas/dallas81.html http://www.maryellenhunt.com/artsblog/2009/02/burn-floor-ballroom-for-new-generation.html http://www.yelp.com/biz/burn-the-floor-post-street-theatre-san-francisco —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melchiord (talk • contribs) 02:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Melchiord has yet to convince me, and there's no real assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 02:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment reliable references about a person need to mention them. Otherwise they are of no use in verifying information for an encyclopedia article. Everything in the article must be verifiable even if the subject is notable. It's certainly not clear that this person is notable. If he is, let the author of the article demonstrate that. See WP:BIO. I am inclined to say delete but will wait. Drawn Some (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I met the guy, saw his work. The show is coming to Broadway. It was a hit in San Fran last month. Sheesh, man, cut some slack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melchiord (talk • contribs) 02:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What must be verifiable? That the show got rave reviews in San Fran? I posted those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melchiord (talk • contribs) 03:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That might make the show notable but he isn't even mentioned, okay? Please stop busting our chops. You know he doesn't meet the guidelines. Drawn Some (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many sound engineers get mentioned in reviews of shows? It's the nature of audio engineers and other fields of work that are in the "background" of a show.

In any case, there's a already a link to Hugh Wilson's website that mentions his music and partial discography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melchiord (talk • contribs) 03:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep He's widely known in Aussie theatre circles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory Clegg (talk (UTC) This template must be substituted.
  • Keep He's got enough verification available online, we just need to get in there and help the article comply more, rather than kill it as a 'baby'. Paul Moss (talk) 04:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Paul Moss, what verification? He's not mentioned! Drmies (talk) 05:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the www.hughwilson.com verification is verification enough! --Melchiord (talk) 05:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable - despite Melchiord voting multiple times. JCutter (talk) 06:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look again Cutter, I voted once, but have made numerous comments. Anyway we all know that Wikipedia is a joke. You guys come in with your numbers and vote something off no matter what the truth of the situation is. Delboy has released 4 CDs with a major label, worked with an Australian Star Search winner, toured the world as a world class sound guy, and released some seminal independent records in the Sydney scene. Just because Australians aren't as notable as Americans isn't any reason to delete a page about a guy. Where is the dedication to truth and information? Bunch of hypocrites all. I have seen Delboy perform, I read his poetry online, and have heard his audio mixing. If he's not "notable" then no-one is.--Melchiord (talk) 06:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you find "in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources published by people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy" to verify the claims that you have just made? quoted from Uncle G (talk · contribs) here Cunard (talk) 06:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, you look like a sock, smell like a sock, and speak in such a way that a sockpuppet generally does, so, until we can get a checkuser, most of us will assume that you are a sockpuppet.--Unionhawk Talk 18:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this autobiography. This articles asserts no notability and the references provided are either non-neutral sources or sources that don't even mention this person. A Google News Archive search for sources returns unrelated results. The closest result is this article about about a musician called "Derek Wilson" (which is the real name of Delboy (musician)). However, this news article is about a musician from Virginia Tech, not Australia. Cunard (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the speedy tag because even though the article fails A7, Paul Moss (talk · contribs), who is a semi-established user, has voted keep on this article. The A7 tag is only for non-controversial speedy deletions, which no longer applies here. Cunard (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm surprised that this article wasn't speedied as an A7. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the people who say Keep are pretty much all SPAs and Socks.--Unionhawk Talk 17:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Melchiord is presently blocked for 24 hours due to 3RR elewhere. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  • So if it's not about majority votes, and all about consensus, mind telling me why this page was deleted when at least 7 people voted "keep" and in fact why people use the word "vote".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikipedia_Art

You can say it's about consensus, but when a majority outyell a minority and pages and lines and information gets perpetually and needlessly deleted, the sham that is Wikipedia is exposed.--Melchiord (talk) 07:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It really is about consensus. Over 9,000 people could give their opinion as delete and the very last person could have a valid reason to keep and it would be kept. Drawn Some (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Melchiord is a suspected sock puppet...--Unionhawk Talk 17:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And just who decides whether the last argument is valid?

The majority. Wikipedia is a farce. It's a numbers website plain and simple. Mob rules. Absolutely no credibility whatsoever, and every needless delete proves the point. "Notable" is subjective. Many "notable" people had articles written in the press before the internet that may have since faded from the public. This is no reason to remove the information from Wikipedia. It's just powerplay from people with nothing better to do. And yes, this belongs up top as it's a discussion of the template, NOT of Delboy.--Melchiord (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. See WP:DEMO. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Consensus is judged by the closing user or admin based on the strength of the arguments, not which side gets the most !votes.--Unionhawk Talk 17:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More top-posting copy-pasted from above. QUIT TOP POSTING. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 20:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I didn't create this page to cause controversy, or create something frivolous or unworthy.

"I'd be happy to have, in theory, a good, neutral biography on every single person on the planet," he says. "I mean, why not, right?" — Jimmy Wales in The Wall Street Journal, August 8, 2008.

As a varied, noteworthy and currently active member of Australian and International arts communities, it seemed that an actual page, as opposed to a user bio was appropriate. In my experience and observation, Australian artists are regularly ignored by the media both in Australia and overseas for a multitude of reasons. I didn't think that a supposed encyclopaedia would harbour regional bias.

I am disappointed in User:Who then was a gentleman? for poor and misleading research tactics. It is plainly clear that as an audio engineer I use my real name - "As it's audio engineer, Wilson has"... So using a search for - delboy +"burn the floor" to justify Burn The Floor's apparent lack of credibility is alarming. A search for "burn the floor" is far more revealing in that respect. A search for "burn the floor" +"derek wilson" does not come up with much because as previously stated - "How many sound engineers get mentioned in reviews of shows? It's the nature of audio engineers and other fields of work that are in the "background" of a show."

A search for "Drowning Jester" also show a different set of results.

I am not claiming to be as famous or notable as Michael Jackson for example, or even famous at all. But whether Wikipedia 'ratifies' it or not, my contributions to the industry at large are undeniable. Delboy-db (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. fully agree with all that written by the subject. There is far too much of this vicious behaviour and assumption of bad and wrong in wikipedia. Sometimes real people doing real stuff are worthy of articles, and it takes some time to put together the verification. The bottom line is clearly that if the energy that went into this 'discussion' went into building a better encyclopedia by building better articles the entire planet would benefit. Who benefits from the allegations and suspicion repeated endlessly here? If I applied that approach, then i would suggest all the trolls that have abused me elsewhere would come here and fight me, but seriously, why would they bother? Would that build a better encyclopedia? lastly, How do we bring newspaper article verification here when the newspaper articles are copyright? Paul Moss (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You name the newspaper, date and page number. Don't fabricate things, as newspapers will be on microfilm in libraries. You don't have to copy the newspaper verbatum, but sumarise instead. The article should be about the person, not just mentioned. I have declined the speedy delete, because there are claims of notability, that may be proven as a result of work triggered by this debate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain just what vicious behavior and assumption of bad and wrong I have committed? All that needs to be done is to provide proof of notability, which I have been unable to find. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP releasing 4 CDs (not all albums) through a major is notable enough for an Australian Artist to be entered in Wikipedia.
As is being a sound engineer for an internationally touring show.
There was indeed plenty of press at the time of the said releases: 1992/93
"Daily Telegraph" of Sydney comes to mind.
"Hey Hey it's Saturday" too.
As has been stated none of that is online, nor copyable--Huboi (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
  • They weren't Delboy CDs, they were Blue Phoenix CDs. That would make the band notable, not him. TheJazzDalek (talk) 01:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
reliable sources? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Bands consist of individuals, so if a band is interesting, then the individuals are interesting. Err in favor of keeping, not deleting.--DunkinDonutBoy
I'd like to know what happened to this - Remember to assume good faith on the part of others --DunkinDonutBoy (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above "interesting vote" has been cast by an account that was created only an hour ago. Cunard (talk) 03:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pleasw stop saying these things Cunard.--DunkinDonutBoy (talk) 04:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails all 12 points of WP:MUSICBIO as well as WP:BIO and the general notability guideline. Being a member of a notable band doesn't make someone inherently notable or "interesting." OlYellerTalktome 04:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Delboy_(musician)&oldid=1083162646"