Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:William John Titus Bishop

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:William John Titus Bishop

Draft:William John Titus Bishop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)​

This draft, written by a paid editor about a non-notable BLP, has sucked too much community time; it is time for this draft to be deleted. I will also note an article about Bishop has been deleted at AfD and is currently salted at William Bishop (performing artist), William Bishop (Author, Musician), William Bishop (Musician, Author), Draft:William Bishop, and William Bishop (singer).

This has been declined at AfC six(!) times before I rejected it yesterday. Since the rejection, the author has tried to improve the article and asked a plethora of questions at the AFC help desk, resulting a ~35 comment discussion in just over 24 hours. Responding to these questions is consuming volunteer time to satisfy a paid editor (and besides the paid author I have seen zero evidence of anyone finding this to be a notable topic).

At the request of the article creator, I have previously prepared several SATs; I have included an updated one below. As you can see, we have identified one (1) possible SIRS candidate, but we would need multiple for notability. UPDATE: that source is not independent; see comments by Cleo Cooper. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table: prepared by User:HouseBlaster
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG ?
https://www.abc.net.au/triplejunearthed/artist/william-john-titus-bishop/	Does not appear to be independent of Bishop (the website says it has has kicked off the careers of thousands of Australian musicians, which seems awfully promotional. Furthermore, it shares much of the same text with source 2.		~ It has two paragraphs, which is not nothing but certainly not enough to base an article on	✘ No
https://www.chinaimx.com/545/	Appears to be sourced from https://www.williamjohntitusbishop.com and is essentially close paraphrasing of the above source		~ It has two paragraphs, which is not nothing but certainly not enough to base an article on	✘ No
https://theplayground.co.uk/listen-to-william-john-titus-bishops-latest-i-dont-remember-you-at-all/			Three sentences about Bishop himself	✘ No
https://www.viberate.com/artist/william-bishop/	Appears to be independent, but I could be wrong. Giving the benefit of the doubt. Not independent; see this comment from Cleo Cooper	? Not sure if this is reliable?	See the "More about William Bishop" section	✘ No
https://www.emptymirrorbooks.com/literature/shakespeare-sonnets-alchemy	By Bishop himself		Not much about Bishop as a person	✘ No
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.npr.org%2Fassets%2Fimg%2F2020%2F09%2F11%2Fdeclanmckenna_tdhc_thumb-439b84365ce19df2b1c95758b0571c37ed67047b.jpg&tbnid=0FubSYJYdNm8kM&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.npr.org%2F2020%2F09%2F14%2F912004072%2Fdeclan-mckenna-tiny-desk-home-concert&docid=6CzqE-UFeDmeAM&w=1438&h=1078&hl=en-GB&sfr=vfe	A video which features Bishop himself		No coverage of Bishop at all	✘ No
https://ethicalinfluencers.co.uk/william-bishop/	Not independent of Bishop; also copies the same bio from sources 1 and 2		It has three meaty paragraphs	✘ No
https://intellifluence.com/blog/william-john-titus-bishop-influencer-spotlight	An interview with Bishop is not independent of Bishop			✘ No
https://theopinionpages.com/2022/10/modern-music-collaboration-influencer-marketing-and-independent-labels/	Written by Bishop himself			✘ No
https://www.cultr.com/news/interview-william-john-titus-bishop-people-can-expect-to-be-moved-by-my-music/	An interview with Bishop is not independent of Bishop			✘ No
https://www.reverbnation.com/williambishop	It contains the phrase I had always wanted to go into music as a career without realising it, which is written in the first person. Even if we grant that it is a typo (and that is a massive assumption), it still contains insights into Bishop's thoughts (e.g. He didn’t think anything of it at the time). Occam's razor is that it was written by Bishop himself.	? I had a long discussion about this source with the author, Topg1985. To counter the fact that it contains Bishop's thoughts, Topg1985 stated that independant writers do sometimes use ‘poetic licence’ when writing about artists.They may just be imagining that is what Bishop was thinking at the time to embellish the article. If we accept that it is an embellishment (read: made-up BS), the source is not reliable.		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

• Delete - The primary and sufficient reason why this draft should be deleted is that the author is
  MFD is a content forum, and deleting the draft does not preclude reporting the editor's conduct to a conduct forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment - The deletion discussion did not preclude me from filing a report at
    WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Ultra-weak keep. There is the weakest, weakest, weakest, weakest hint of notability, from Bored City and CULTR, but these are interviews. But they are recent and new from past AfD. At the moment, this is an absolute waste of time from probably paid editors. By the way, @House, that Viberate source is not independent, see here. However, in 3 years, can this person be notable? I'll give it a weak maybe. Cleo Cooper (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just curious, in the case of a delete, would the draft be able to be recreated? Or G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. Cleo Cooper (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the note about Viberate—I have amended the SAT accordingly.

  Interviews with Bishop are certainly not independent of Bishop, and thus cannot contribute to notability (which requires significant coverage in secondary reliable sources independent of the subject. Per

  we have a list of articles which were (correctly!) deleted at one point—in many cases due to lack of notability—only to be (again, correctly!) recreated later once they qualified. One great examples of this include iPhone (discussion).

  G4 applies if someone recreates the same page with essentially the same content. If someone recreates this page with different content—in particular, with additional sourcing—that would not qualify as G4. Let me know if you have any other questions, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Thank you for the clarification. I will vote delete. Cleo Cooper (talk) 05:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In that case, can you please strike out your earlier !vote, just for clarity @Cleo Cooper – thanks. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Cleo Cooper (talk) 06:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 02:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I think the source analysis table is beig a bit generous assessing theplayground.co.uk and www.viberate.com as independent. Read about The Playground UK and you'll see they are a PR company. And Viberate provides tools for artists. Given the rejection of the draft further wasting of time on it is not a good thing.-- Whpq (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The originator has been indeffed by
  sockpuppet report. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  You're welcome @Robert McClenon. I gave them a fairly strong warning against sock/meat but I got a disingenuous reply so feel free to ping me if further admin action is necessary. I will not weigh in here as to content as I'm obviously Involved. Star Mississippi 12:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (& salt?) as utterly non-notable subject with very poor referencing (and yes, that Playground/Playee source is not reliable, although was credited as such). The other titles in this title-gaming hullabaloo have already been salted (and that includes also Draft:William Bishop (Musician) and Draft:William Bishop (musician)), so this probably should be also... unless we want to leave it open for a reason? ;) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Is salting even possible? This musician shares a name with many people (see: William Bishop). Cleo Cooper (talk) 06:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The various forms of the name have all been salted in article space. I think that salting in draft space is undesirable, because it encourages the further

  gaming of titles. It might be in order to salt William John Titus Bishop. Salting in draft space should be reserved for extreme and unusual situations, and this is not one of them; it is persistent and troublesome, but not extreme and unusual compared to other cases of similar misconduct. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  In my opinion, Draft:William Bishop should be unsalted, because someone might reasonably submit a draft for another different person with that name, and might not know about disambiguation. (New users don't always know about disambiguation.) The reviewer can disambiguate the name in that case. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That is a good idea. Cleo Cooper (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom and comments above. Subject is clearly non-notable with very poor referencing (including one source that uses Google?), and draft has been rejected by an unprecedented seven (!) times. HarukaAmaranth ^春_香 14:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to User:HarukaAmaranth - It wasn't rejected seven times. It was declined seven times and rejected once. Seven declines are not unprecedented, only excessive. I have seen nine declines. That isn't much of a difference. Occasionally the resubmitting editor is making a bona fide effort to submit a draft about someone whom they think is notable. In this case they may have only been making an effort to get paid for getting the article in place. It wasn't unprecedented, only excessive. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Armaghan Muawiyah. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - but
  AE thread summaries 18:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete (no opinion on salting). This article was created by a  Confirmed sock (Topg1985) of globally locked Armaghan Muawiyah and could therefore be speedily deleted under
  WP:G5. --Yamla (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2024 (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 page's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.