Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Aaron

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. Sandstein 07:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Aaron

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Possibly an autobiographical article for a non notable artist who falls short of WP:MUSICBIO & doesn’t have in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Despite the ref bombing all sources are either unreliable, PR stunts or self published sources. Celestina007 (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. More than one of the references in this article meet criteria 1 for notability of musicians and ensembles.

Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.

Many of the references are published by reputable, non-trivial sources and do not fall into the exception list of

Reprints of press releases
Trivial coverage.
Articles in a school or university publication.

For example: this and this are both pieces focusing exclusively on Jeremy Aaron.

I agree that there are a lot of references, some of which are blogs or the musician's official website. However, some information, such as release date of an album should be sourced from the musician's official website. For example, if you check out Joni Mitchell's wiki page, the first reference is jonimitchell.com, which is controlled by Joni Mitchell.

Would you care to point out which sources are "unreliable, PR stunts, or self published sources" and we can remove those? Jeremyagottfried 23:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is established with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Bandcamp, instagram, etc are not reliable sources. The muscisan's own web site is not independent. A mention of the musician's name in the credit's for a song, or album, etc. is not significant coverage. Concert announcements are not significant coverage. Once we eliminate those references from consideration, the only remaining are literally the two noted above. Of those, Ear to the Ground writes about emerging musicians which is to say those who have are not yet notable. So I'd say we have at best, one piece of significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are definitely more than one independent reliable sources. Including the two you mentioned, This is coverage of Jeremy in another independent article. This is radio coverage of Jeremy. The references where Jeremy Aaron is not the subject serve to strengthen the argument that he is also a notable figure in his work accompanying other musicians and organizing concerts.

This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following

Jeremyagottfried (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The radio show appearance is an interview and performance. It does not represent coverage that establishes notability. The Broadway World article is concert announcement and does not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeremyagottfried, the entire article is ref bombeb with unreliable sources & sources that apparently don’t even concern subject of the article so i am going ahead to trim it for you & in the end you’d see for yourself how empty the ref section really is after all the mirage has been removed. Give me a minute or two to accomplish that.Celestina007 (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for improving the article. I appreciate it! It sounds like the main argument I'm hearing is that musicians who haven't received widespread national recognition are not notable. If that is the standard, then apply the standard equally across wikipedia. Let's remove every article contributed by @Tracklan2 contributions Let's remove the pages for every musician who operates at a local level but has toured on a fairly regular basis. Cause if we're being honest, coverage in 2 online blogs vs 4 online blogs is not that big of a difference in notability. Most online music publications, like Pitchfork, deli magazine, etc are curated by pay to play PR campaigns. Notability based on a standard of so called "independent" media coverage is a very subjective standard.Jeremyagottfried (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremyagottfried, jeez what’s with the bludgeon? Are you one & the same person as the subject of your article? Celestina007 (talk) 04:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007 Absolutely. As long as the writing is honest and open to collaboration by the community, then I don't take issue with autobiographical pages. Most low-profile musician wikis are written by fans of the artist, which is equally biased. I am bludgeoning cause I see this as an opportunity to expound on this ideal of "notability" compared to the way the music industry actually works. Jeremyagottfried (talk) 04:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremyagottfried, okay you might need to slow down & understand the fundamental policies governing this community before commenting any further or creating any new articles in the future. You wouldn’t want to get blocked for being a “promo only account” now would you? Have you by any chance read the contents of WP:AUTO? Celestina007 (talk) 05:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007 I just read it, thanks for sharing. This describes a lot of artist biography pages on wikipedia. If autobiography = written by someone with a positive bias toward the person in question. The founder of wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, has edited his own biography page, probably before these guidelines were written. https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=Jimbo+Wales&page=Jimmy_Wales&server=enwiki&max= But these standards are probably only applied when someone like myself is honest about it and publish under my actual legal name rather than an anonymous username. Jeremyagottfried (talk) 06:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeremyagottfried:, I hope this message finds you well. If you are truly here to build an encyclopedia, I encourage you to review (in addition to WP:AB) the policy pages about What about article X? and Other Stuff Exists. Generally, a comparison is not useful on its own (because maybe other pages should be deleted as well) and is only useful to support an otherwise meritorious argument. The comparison you have made between the article here and that of Jimmy Wales does not appear to be helpful because Jimmy Wales has obviously received significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources such as to pass WP:GNG, while we are struggling to find such sources about the subject at issue. Generally, a subject may create a page about themself if they conform to all of the other rules Wikipedians need to conform to, such as only creating subjects about notable pages and using reliable, independent secondary sources that give significant coverage of the subject; that is what the WP:AB page tries to explain. If you are here first and foremost to here to build an encyclopedia, then other editors will be happy to have your help on this site. If, however, you are not here to help build an encyclopedia because your purpose is otherwise (e.g. to self-promote), then I would remind you that Wikipedia is not about you, and conflict of interest editing is practically prohibited beyond some limited instances. You can visit the WP:TEAHOUSE to ask any questions about these principles, or you can post them on my talk page if you wish and I would be happy to try and answer them. Best wishes, Ikjbagl (talk) 05:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The noise about the WP:AUTOBIOG issue is irrelevant since we have to judge the text on its merits. And its subject evidently fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. Wikipedia is not some all-inclusive listing of every musician or artist. -The Gnome (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources provided don't pass GNG or NMUSICIAN (I agree with Whpq and The Gnome) and the article should be deleted for lack of demonstrated notability. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, it seems from the above discussion that this is an admitted WP:AB and that the page creator may therefore have WP:NPOV issues. Since that seems to be the case, EVEN IF THE SUBJECT WERE NOTABLE, I would consider recommending WP:TNT to deal with it so that the article could be re-created independently from reliable sources. Ikjbagl (talk) 05:11, 10 May 2020 (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.