Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grey Revell

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grey Revell

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This subject appears not meet

autobiography. JFHJr (㊟) 04:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

there were some interviews with Jeffrey Lewis that were removed, for no apparent reason they're here: http://www.trakmarx.com/2001_02/lewis.htm and http://mancunianmatters.co.uk/content/21101485-first-lastwith-new-york-anti-folk-star-jeffrey-lewis both of these articles corroborate that Grey is a contemporary of these artists, which is all the article ever said in the first place. also here is a link to the album produced by Grey on Ramseur Records: http://paleface.bandcamp.com/album/the-show-is-on-the-road If the other less notable records should be removed, that is a valid case, but the only problem here seems that there weren't enough citations. Astrocrow (talk) 13:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC) — Astrocrow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:42. None of this is negotiable: being a contemporary of other artists is not notable. JFHJr (㊟) 16:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE. Mr. Revell has recorded over eight albums, and is a significant contributor to the anti-folk community and genre. Mr. Revell's contributions are significant and notable. Reliable sources can also include the albums he has recorded as original sources. They are available in full version here: http://greyrevell.bandcamp.com/. Though his recorded albums are "self-authored" and are not "Independent of the Subject" these albums, taken along with his recent commercial popularity abroad, his recent attention from media and new fan base, and his significant influence on other anti-folk musicians should be taken as a whole to come to the conclusion that he and his music are notable subjects worthy of a Wikipedia page.

Also, though Mr. Revell has yet to attain widespread attention in the United States, he is not 'likely to remain' in this position, as his popularity is growing exponentially due to the recent attention received via the HP commercial. Mr. Revell is a notable and significant American singer-songwriter and deserves a Wikipedia page.

Grey Revell's contribution to American Songwriting is significant. His recent placement in the HP commercial is a significant achievement, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O91lPSKfgpk&feature=relmfu . He is receiving more downloads now than any other indie musician referenced in his own article. He is touring with the nationally known artist "Paleface" and contributing significantly to his next album. As I am sure you are aware, deleting Mr. Revell's entry from your archives could have serious career consequences for a musician on the brink of widespread commercial success in the U.S. This is an action not to be taken lightly.

It would disserve the Wikipedia community to delete the page of such a significant and notable American singer-songwriter. He is, under the Wikipedia guidelines for notability of music, a "prominent representative of a notable style of music", anti-folk. He has "performed music for a work of media that is notable", the HP commercial. He is a member of a national PRO. He is widely cited by his peers, though all citations are not posted here, and someone seems to be systematically deleting the citations that have been posted recently. There are more sources available. All of these criteria make him eligible for the definition of "notable" under Wikipedia's policy guidelines.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AmandaBCook (talk • contribs) 16:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC) — AmandaBCook (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

None of which are sufficient reasons for keeping the article. As I am sure you are aware, deleting Mr. Revell's entry from your archives could have serious career consequences for a musician on the brink of widespread commercial success in the U.S. This is an action not to be taken lightly is immaterial--Wikipedia is not here to advance a career (Parenthetically, a Wikipedia biography generally has very little impact on career trajectory, and attempts to 'guilt' editors into keeping an article have even less impact on the Wikipedia community). None of the removed citations came from reliable sources, per
WP:CRYSTAL; Wikipedia does not include articles based on the possibility or even likelihood that someone may become notable. As yet there is no evidence that "he is widely cited by his peers." If there are any credible sources, I'd suggest you add them, rather than making claims that no editors have yet been able to substantiate. If and when such sources become available, a deleted article may be resubmitted. Thanks, 76.248.149.47 (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

You did not address his thus far commercial success, which DOES fit under the Wikipedia definition of notable. The reasons stated in my last paragraph of my first comment are all, independently, reasons given in WP:MUSIC for allowing a notable music bio. This reasoning cannot just be ignored by stating "none of which are sufficient," that is just flatly untrue. How can the very commercial that used his song, itself, be unreliable, especially in combination with his discography on Bandcamp, where the song is available in its entirety? Did you fail to follow the link to the commercial that I provided? Are you not aware that under the DMCA the recording artist who created "Gone Gone" would have these sources removed almost instantly if they were not reliable sources, if the music had somehow, no matter how unlikely, been recorded by another artist? In the case of this song, all THREE factors of reliability, the source itself, the publisher of the source, and the publisher of the source are COMPLETELY reliable. Mr. Revell IS notable, and he has every indication of remaining notable as an American singer-songwriter in the future. I am not an editor of this article. I have added links and they have been removed within minutes of my adding them, by whom I do not know. Perhaps John from Chapel Hill can answer that question. He seems to have some sort of personal connection to and/or vendetta against Mr. Revell. I don't have time to keep adding reliable sources just to have them taken down by the likes of you. My law practice keeps me too busy to fool around much on Wikipedia. But I do know that calling an artist whose career depends on notoriety "un-notable" might be considered by a court as libel, Mr. 76.248.149.47. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmandaBCook (talk • contribs) 00:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC) — AmandaBCook (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Given the last comment, this is now off to the incidents noticeboard. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editor is now indef'd until or if they rescind and disavow the legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AmandaBCook, you gotta read

Mati 02:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. No evidence of notability has been provided. No workups on himself or his work have been shown to exist in reliable sources, and his indie status makes these unlikely to exist. Really, anyone who is described by his own people as being "on the brink of success" is almost certainly non-notable. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability has not been asserted, with little (if I can find any)
Mati 02:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Amanda doesn't understand how reliable sourcing works. Please read
WP:RS thoroughly, Amanda. Okay, so this guy has a song in part of a Hewlett-Packard commercial for an ink-jet printer? That's your argument for musical notability??? LOL. It's a mighty small argument, but okay, I'll engage you in it. Give us the sources--where are the ARTICLES about that song being partially in the commercial? Where are the ARTICLES that tell us how important, significant and influential it is? Oh--there aren't any?? Well guess what, Amanda, that means that, according to official Wikipedia policies, this Revell guy is just not notable. You see, Wikipedia verifiability is all about secondary sourcing, not primary sourcing. I hope you're beginning to understand, although I fear it may be too late, since you're on the verge of getting yourself permanently banned from Wikipedia for making legal threats. You see, that also goes against our policies. You claim to be a law-school graduate and an attorney, so you should know by now how to read and interpret policy. Thank you for your time. Qworty (talk) 02:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - No assertion of notability (just "he moved here and did that") + No secondary sources = Soon, no article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. AmandaBCook actually does herself a disservice. Whether intentionally or not, in her 'DO NOT DELETE' post she has in fact spelled out all the reasons why this article lacks notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One of the spambots stripped out the YouTube link, per [1]. YouTube is never a reliable source. In any case, the video Amanda offered is not about Revell. Thus, it cannot be used to argue that he is notable. What is it about? A Hewlett-Packard inkjet printer! Thus, even if the video were permitted here, it could be used only to argue that inkjet printing is notable. Which, in fact, it is, as seen from the existence of the following article: Inkjet printing. Are you beginning to understand now, Amanda? Are you still going to sue us when you're the one who confused this guy with a printer? Qworty (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't say "never", but it would be a pretty short list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"though Mr. Revell has yet to attain widespread attention . . ." Amanda, please read
WP:CRYSTAL. I know that all of the policies being thrown at you here in the AfD and on your talk page will make from some extensive, heavy, and dry reading, but you claim to be legally trained, so it should be a cinch for you. Qworty (talk) 03:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: User:AmandaBCook is indefinately blockedfor making legal threats. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's got a track on a Rough Trade compilation and on an ad - that's good but not enough. Otherwise, having your catalogue at Bandcamp means nothing more than having your book at Amazon. It means 'this exists'. Otherwise, Ms Cook has (unfortunately) said it all. Except for referring to 'notoriety' when I would have expected 'fame' or 'notability'. Notoriety is Al Capone, or alleged by hiphoppers and rappers (often trying to live down middle class upbringings). I would also point out that this is a bit of a Catch 22 - if one's career depends on having a Wikpedia article, then one is certainly not in the position (yet) of qualifying for one. If one's career is such that one is too busy to be worried about it, one probably qualifies. I wish him luck - music is a hard business. And hope to see him back some day with a regular label or at least plenty of reliable independent sources
WP:RS. Peridon (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2012 (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.