Talk:Alex Day

A First Response to the Editor's Objections
I've made several changes to the article in response to the posted objections. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7217479.stm http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/oct/06/youtube.youngpeople http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/3358177/Can-your-camcorder-make-you-rich.html http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article6914409.ece http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-5519 http://www.wired.com/underwire/2009/06/trock-gaining-traction-with-time-lord-fans/ http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2008/08/time-lord-rock/ http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/s7/doctorwho/tubetalk/a158350/introducing-trock-songs-about-doctor-who.html http://www.digitalspy.com/music/singlesreviews/a186401/chartjackers-ive-got-nothing.html http://www.thelondonpaper.com/going-out/whats-new/put-your-money-where-your-youtube-video-is http://www.theyorker.co.uk/news/uninews/3739 http://www.thisisbath.co.uk/news/winnersarticle-579579-details/article.html Wmoran9550 (talk) 08:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I deleted most of the external links, keeping only two of them. I think that this problem has now been fixed.
 * I tried to smooth out the timeline to make it more balanced between recent and remote events. But frankly, we are writing about a 21-year-old here, and most of what he's accomplished could be considered recent. So that could be part of the problem. I think I could possibly add some historical perspective to the section about Trock music. But that risks creating an article within the article - although, a separate article about the Trock scene might not be such a bad thing.
 * As for the notability issue, I'm having a hard time getting a clear idea of what has to be shown in the article. I think Alex Day's claim to notability is based on his leading role in the Trock movement, his invention of the very term for that genre, his release of several albums and his appearances on several television shows - as well as his YouTube popularity. I wouldn't overstress his YouTube work, because even without it, I think he would merit at least a small Wikipedia entry. I think the article contains ample citations supporting his notability. For that purpose, at this time, these twelve could be considered the strongest:

A word of explanation has become necessary here. For some reason, some wonderful Wikipedia admin came along and started fixing problems in this article, especially in the footnotes. He's making them look like real footnotes, instead of mere hyperlinks. I'm studying the changes, and learning a lot from them. But this means that the footnotes no longer look like those I've listed in the section above and in the Notability Matrix below - even though they do link to the same sources. And to Paul A: Thanks, mate. Wmoran9550 (talk) 06:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

A Factor to Consider
When deciding whether a person merits a separate Wikipedia article, it might be useful to ask whether readers would expect to find an article here about this person. Or maybe the better question is this: Would readers be surprised not to find an article about this person on Wikipedia? I suppose this is why every American Idol contestant seems to have a Wikipedia article - and there are no objections to the notability of these people, even when their published notices are pretty thin. Take a look at Aaron_Kelly_(singer), for example. Of course, people expect to find an article about him on Wikipedia, and I think there should be an article on him. But if we take Aaron Kelly as the standard of notability, then I think Alex Day is notable enough. I came to Wikipedia looking for information about Alex Day, but I found no article. That surprised me so much that I decided to open a Wikipedia account (something I'd been meaning to do anyway) and write an article about him myself. Alex Day is a well-known personality, with hundreds of thousands of fans, and I'm sure many or most of them have come to Wikipedia looking for an article about him. This is not a factor that should be used to waive the notability guidelines. But it is one of the questions that could be asked to help decide whether a person is notable. If thousands of people come here expecting to find an article about someone, that in itself is some indication that this person is notable in some way. I think it would be a mistake to remove an article that thousands of people expect to find here. Along those lines, I wonder if we could determine how many people actually have come to Wikipedia looking for an article about Alex Day. Could we find out how many searches there have been for terms like "Alex Day" or "nerimon" ? Wmoran9550 (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Wmoran9550 (talk) 05:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Is Alex Day Notable ?
I designed this table to help me perform a "notability check" on Alex Day. In addition, it may contribute something to the discussion. According to Wikipedia guidelines, notability can be established by satisfying just one of the listed criteria. For someone to satisfy all these criteria might be considered immodest. ;>

Notability Matrix
Wmoran9550 (talk) 07:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

My info
i see that most of the stuff that i had added has been removed, becuase some of the links i used were 'dead'. i guess thats fair enuogh, but ive just checked out a wikipdeia page on the subject, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Linkrot) and it says: "Do not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer". and the infromation that i added is 100% factual, that's exacrtly what happened. i'd saved the links to alex's YT videos in my history, which is how i new them. dunno why he deleted them, youll have to ask him that. but hell tell you taht what i put was right. and i was just trying to add some trock info "to keep recent events in historical perspective", like it sais at the top of the page. and i think it makes more sense to mention how trock managed to get mentoined in issue 401 of DWM - atm, it just says that trock was mentioned in the letters page, but it doesnt say how it managhed to get there 92.0.127.9 (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't remove that info because it was false. I removed it because, without proper citations, there's no way to know whether it's true or false. You'll notice that I left the one assertion that seemed to be properly supported. I doubt there will be any real problem understanding how a letter to the editor got published. As you said, letters were published because letters were sent, which is the usual way that sort of thing happens. Also, I think it's generally understood that musicians and other performers promote themselves and their careers, in various ways. I'm not sure it's really necessary to state that in the article, or document it. It more or less goes without saying, doesn't it? On the other hand, if some musician or performer had achieved some success without promoting themselves, that actually might be worth mentioning in an article. Bottom line: I was just trying to keep this article up to Wikipedia standards, which generally require assertions to be documented with proper citations. And by the way, I ran this past a very well-established and respected Wikipedia editor, immediately. He agreed that the deletions were absolutely proper. Hope the weather's good in Glasgow. Wmoran9550 (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The Rule Concerning Articles About Living Persons
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should not be inserted and if present, must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to the subject of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmoran9550 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing Multiple Issues tags from article
This article has been tagged for multiple issues since day 2 of its existence. Three specific objections were raised. First, "Its external links may not comply with Wikipedia's content policies or guidelines." That issue was resolved immediately by removing most of the external links. Second, "It may be slanted towards recent events. Please edit this page to keep recent events in historical perspective." Much information has been added to the article since then, and the style and the structure of the writing has been improved to diminish the recentism-feel it had. Third, "The notability of this article's subject is in question." The issue of notability has been addressed in great length and detail on this discussion page, and there have been NO contributions to this discussion which have made ANY argument that the subject does not meet Wikipedia notability standards. The discussion has gone on for more than a month now. There seems to be a consensus that this subject is notable enough to merit an article.

Since all objections have been resolved, I shall proceed forthwith to remove the tags.

Wmoran9550 (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

TARDIS Photo Caption
The original caption for the photo was "Stepping out of the Tardis".

The edited caption is "Standing in the doorway of a Doctor Who TARDIS".

The reason given for this edit is: "Changed caption on TARDIS photo. It was a bit silly."

I have three objections to this edit:

First, the original caption was mildly humorous, but not "silly".

Second, it is not obvious to me how the new, edited caption is any less "silly" than the original caption.

Third, the new caption is redundant. The concept of a Tardis includes the concept of Doctor Who. There is no other kind of Tardis.

This edit should not have been made without a discussion. Unless it is justified in this discussion, I'm going to undo it.

Wmoran9550 (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It is my understanding that Wikipedia pages aren't supposed to be humorous, they are supposed to be informative. The new caption is not silly. It tells you exactly what is happening in the picture. I put the Doctor Who part in because some may not be well-versed in the show. I admit that that phrase could be removed. Also, the old caption was lying, for he wasn't stepping out of the TARDIS but standing in its doorway. The new caption isn't perfect but I believe it is better than the old one. I hope this answers your concerns. Half Price (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Your change still calls it a TARDIS, when of course, it is not a TARDIS. It is an old London police box. There's no such thing as a TARDIS. A TARDIS is a fictional entity. And so, as far as I can tell, your new caption is just as humorous, or "silly" as the old caption - except that it's longer. Also, the original caption wasn't "lying" - a pretty strong accusation, don't you think? - when it said that he was stepping out of the Tardis. He could have been stepping out of it, and stopped to have this photo taken - to mark the occasion. Or he could have been about to step into it. Or he could be just standing there - which is your interpretation. I don't think it's so clear, or so important, that it required changing the caption. Of course Wikipedia articles are not primarily humor pieces, but that doesn't mean they have to be humorless, especially when we're talking about the caption to a photo which itself is meant to be a bit humorous. I'm not saying your new caption has ruined the article. I just think it's better to discuss such changes before making them, unless we're talking about defamation or vandalism. It's more polite to discuss such style changes first, and it fits in better with the Wikipedia spirit of consensus. Contrast this with the change you made today, where you updated the fiveawesomeguys channel statistics. That was straight-forward and practically automatic. It was an excellent improvement to the article, and it required no discussion here. In any case, I would like to at least shorten the new caption by removing the Doctor Who part from it. We can leave your change from "stepping out" to "standing in front". If some reader doesn't know what a TARDIS is, notice that TARDIS is linked to the Wikipedia article that will explain what it is. What do you think? Would you have a problem with that?

Wmoran9550 (talk) 01:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, feel free. I apologise for thinking that it was not really that important a detail to discuss first. With things like that if anyone does take exception it can be discussed, but I didn't expect it to be contentious. Half Price (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, that makes sense. You make a good point, actually. I usually resist the temptation to make purely stylistic changes to articles, since they tend to turn into edit wars or interminable arguments with lots of hurt feelings. But it's perfectly true. If someone doesn't like your change, they can always bring it up for discussion. This Wikipedia system is a trip sometimes, isn't it? Take care.

Wmoran9550 (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The WP system has its failings, and it can sometimes suffer from way too much bureaucracy. But hey, it's good on the whole! Take care yourself. Half Price (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sons of Admirals Section
All very good and it needed to be added, but I can't help but think the bit about the song being available on iTunes and viewable on Youtube would come across as a bit of an advertisement. I reckon the YT video could be added to the external links, but I think a link to the iTunes page doesn't agree with the WP impartiality standard. Thanks. Half Price (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone else changed it so no worries. Half Price (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

eddplant is Ed Blann
In case someone else is tempted to change it, Ed Blann is the actual name of eddplant. The article lists the actual names of the members of Sons of Admirals, and not their YouTube names. Ed Blann is not a mistake. It is the correct name. Please do not change it to eddplant. It begins to seem like vandalism.

Wmoran9550 (talk) 07:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again, some anonymous IP from the U.K. did a drive-by edit and changed the name Ed Blann to Eddplant - without discussing the change, and probably without even looking at this discussion page. This is an encyclopedia, not a personal website. The mere fact that someone prefers their internet alias does not mean that this article should be censored to conceal what is documented and known to be his actual name. All the other members of Sons Of Admirals are identified by their actual names, and no good reason has been offered by anyone to make an exception for Ed Blann, aka "eddplant". Kindly stop removing his actual name from this article - or if you think his actual name should be concealed, at least raise the issue for discussion on this page first. This sort of edit by anonymous IP addresses with little or no other history of edits strongly suggests vandalism - and there is a Wikipedia procedure for blocking known vandals.

Wmoran9550 (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hopefully my edit will change things. Half Price (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your edit to Sons Of Admirals. I lifted your hidden note and put it in this article too. I hope that will help. Thanks. Wmoran9550 (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah yes I got my articles mixed up. I think it will do the trick. Thanks. Half Price (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm hoping that the edit I made a few minutes ago will be acceptable to all. Let's not change it again without first discussing it here. Please. Wmoran9550 (talk) 00:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

a modest proposal
I've been informed, and I've verified, that the citation used as the source for Eddplant's actual name no longer contains that information. This can be fixed. There are other sources we can cite. The question is whether we want to keep that information in this article at all, considering that Eddplant is mentioned only once, in passing, and is not the actual subject of the article. If we do want to keep the real-name information in the article, I am proposing that we update the citation, and then move his actual name out of the main text of the article, and into the footnote itself. Without objection, I would like to do this today or tomorrow, and then move on. It seems to me these are the options:
 * 1) Should we leave it as is, with maybe an updated source?
 * 2) Should we delete the real name from the article completely?
 * 3) Should we move the real name out of the text and into the footnote?

Your thoughts?

Wmoran9550 (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, it is a hard one. If you want a footnote then I'd go for Option 3 too. --Half Price (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Bueno, since no objections were noted, I went ahead and incorporated the real name info in the footnote, while also updating that footnote itself, since the previous source had been changed to remove the relevant information. I also made a number of purely formal edits to the article and one substantive edit concerning the release date of "Here Comes My Baby", which according to the iTunes site was May 31, 2010, rather than the date we had in the article. I removed some internal Wiki links from the lead paragraph, all of which are repeated in the main body of the article, in order to clean it up and make it read more smoothly. Hope everyone's ok with these edits. Wmoran9550 (talk) 04:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've just checked WebCite, and there is a recent archive of Ed Blann's last.fm profile before he removed his surname that could probably be used as a reference as follows:
 * That said, this is still clearly quite a thorny issue. For one, Edd would clearly prefer that he was referred to by his stage name. In all other articles that mention performers who go under stage names (e.g. Snoop Dogg, Eminem, Andre 3000, etc.), their stage names are how they are referred to. But then, of course, that's because they're notable enough to have Wikipedia biographies, so, if somebody really wanted to learn their legal name, they have somewhere that they could check. The same is not true for Eddplant.
 * I'm still not totally convinced that it's entirely appropriate to mention his surname in the article; is it encyclopedic and does it increase the reader's understanding of Alex Day to give Edd's full name? Then again, the footnote option seems like a good compromise, so I'm happy to leave it like that. Anyway, those are just my thoughts. Vobedd731 (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: In any case, the name is currently written on the page as 'Ed Plant', which is 100% wrong, regardless of whether we're using the stage name 'eddplant' or the real name 'Ed Blann'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.54.193 (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Chartjackers section
A couple of days ago I added to the article another example of the Chartjackers project being mentioned by the mainstream media. My concern is that this sentence is now looking rather long and a little unwieldy. It currently reads as follows: "It was also reviewed, with varying degrees of approval, by The Times, Yahoo! Music's James Masterton, BBC Radio 1's Chart Blog, Tower Review, Mashable, Digital Spy, Popjustice and Drowned in Sound." I propose that we reduce the number of sources that are cited to a maximum of about four, and keep the ones that are most notable. The Drowned in Sound one definitely needs to go, as it's apparently not very well sourced (apologies, I think it was me who added that one), and the Digital Spy review is cited earlier in the paragraph, so I don't think there's any need to mention it again. Tower Review and Mashable are probably the least notable of the remaining sources, so I suggest rewriting the sentence as follows: "It was also reviewed, with varying degrees of approval, by various media outlets, including The Times, Yahoo! Music's James Masterton, BBC Radio 1's Chart Blog, and Popjustice." Your thoughts? Vobedd731 (talk) 06:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, looks good to me --Half Price (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Great, I've now made those changes. Thanks very much! Vobedd731 (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

References to object of the article
Alex Day has, on two occasions, disclosed that he dislikes referring to professionals by their last names (www.alexdaymusic.com/blog). Should we change all the "Day" references to "Alex" for his and some o his followers' personal satisfaction, or just stick to the rules of the website and not take into account any dislikes quirks of mannerisms of the subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.118.8 (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

What's changed?
Articles on this subject have been deleted four times before (1, 2, 3, 4), most recently just weeks ago. What has changed since then to make this person notable? Lagrange613 (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Never mind, just saw the deletion review. Lagrange613 (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think Alex deserves an article. He just doesn't have enough of that great stuff which catapulted his friend Charlie into YouTube superstardom. He isn't as beneficial or as technically innovative as Charlie, either; his blogs are shorter, simpler and less well-known. Eternities (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Your comment was 100% subjective: "deserves", "that great stuff", "less well-known". There's a big difference between your personal opinion, and Wiki guidelines on notability. I don't think several terrorists or religious extremists "deserve" Wiki articles - the fact that their behaviour is "notable", as well as deplorable, is the deciding factor. Wiki isn't a site for fans/haters to pick and choose you gets an article. Usually it's the fans you start them in good faith but with lack of knowledge of how to use reliable sources, and the haters who AfD them in questionable faith who become savvy at the guidelines and decidedly wiki-lawyer them to death. Personally, I don't watch Alex, I simply don't like the AfD trolls - so given the choice, it's more amusing to counter their unproductive AfDs and watch them cry havoc about it. Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  [talk] 14:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

First DW inspired rock music?
It says: "TARDIR were the first band to perform Doctor Who-inspired music" But what about The Time Lords' song, Doctoring the Tardis? I think that can be categorized as rock music. 80.98.146.68 (talk) 07:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

nermie army nonsense
There seems an enthusiasm for adding information about "nermie army", which is fair enough. However, this really needs a reliable independent source. It's disputed (someone doesn't want it there), and unsourced. Don't edit war over it, please. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Multiple issues template
I have tagged this article as having multiple issues. I have expressed before that I feel that this article needs a complete restructure (and maybe even a complete rewrite) to bring it more to the level of a biographical encyclopaedia article rather than Alex Day's CV. I really feel that it needs to be set out something like: Early life -> nerimon -> being featured on YouTube -> building a fanbase -> fiveawesomeguys -> Upstaged -> Trock -> Chameleon Circuit -> solo material -> Chartjackers -> Sons of Admirals -> etc. etc. so that it makes logical sense to an uninformed reader. I'm also not convinced by some of the references that are used in this article, e.g. Yow Yow, Chrisbookarama.com, Buzzfeed, MeFeedia, etc. etc. – what makes them reliable sources per Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches and Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Dispatches? The article also goes into a bit too much unnecessary detail, e.g. is it really necessary to include that his girlfriend once wrote a song about him, that he was once interviewed on a channel called "CheekTV", or precisely how many channel views the fiveawesomeguys channel has? The quotation in the second paragraph is also far too long, and might be bordering on a copyright violation. I think this article needs a lot of work done to it, and I wish all participating editors the very best of luck in improving it. Happy editing, A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 10:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Now that this article, for the first time, has survived the latest in a long series of AfDs I'd like to voice my support that it is in desperate need of overhaul. Speaking as someone who has nominated the article for deletion in the past and maintained my support for that position in the latest AfD, if I'm now to give it the benefit of the doubt that there is actually some notable material, I'd like to point out just how difficult it is for anyone to see any wheat amongst such a vast accumulation of chaff. No wonder it has attracted so many AfDs. The swathes of poorly supported and unsupported material and great list of overwhelmingly unreliable refs does the article no favours and screams out, whether rightly or wrongly, "fan site" or "vanity page". A sizeable bowel movement of the dubious material may result in a leaner, much smaller but more credible article that could finally convince me, and others, of its notability. This could have been done a long time ago and, if it had been, might have saved us all a lot of time repeatedly arguing about the merits or otherwise of the article.


 * Per Cazort's final comment in the Afd debate that "many people are arguing to keep on poor grounds and making personal attacks", I feel disinclined to touch it with a barge pole at the moment since I imagine the rigorous excisions I would execute would not be well received by the minority in the debate who seemed to drop the A of GF without a second thought. Please can the promised rescue commence? Doddy Wuid (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Too Many Pictures
I'm gonna go ahead and clear up the pictures a bit. Sorry for all the removals but it makes the article look kind of messy when there's too many images around. Feel free to revert if you object :) Bottomlivefan95 (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Whilst you're at it, your last contribs need citing. Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  [talk] 21:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Alex or Alec
The edit made by 81.97.54.247, claims that Alex's name is Alec, not Alex (with no citation too). As the article is semi-protected, I cannot undo the edit myself. Iankp (talk) 06:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 January 2012
The article states that "Day is the creator of the music genre "Trock"... music written about or inspired by the popular BBC sci-fi television series Doctor Who." However, a group called The Timelords (KLF under a pseudonym) had a number one single, 'Doctorin' the Tardis' in 1988, before Alex Day was born. Regardless of the citation, or who invented the name (or when), Alex Day cannot be the creator of a musical genre that existed before he was born (unless he, himself, is capable of time travel). Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctorin%27_the_Tardis At minimum, please restate as: "Alex Day is a singer in the musical genre "Trock""... However, there do seem to be general problems with neutrality of this article and its promotional nature suggests this should be completely re-written, or at least unlocked to prevent its current over-egged status from continuing, given that it seems to have already been subject to complaints and a number of unsuccessful re-writes from an apparently biased source.

Hackenjack (talk) 14:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Doctorin' the Tardis" was a one-off pop song. A genre is a "form of music" - The Timelords didn't create a genre.. they didn't pursue a culture of Dr Who related music. They wrote one song. Day, and others, have create a culture of Dr Who music, and bands focused purely on Dr Who. Your argument makes a point, but it is inaccurate. Trock isn't really a genre anyway, it's a derivative - some of the songs produced by Trock bands are pop, some rock, some synth, etc. So it's a sub-genre which is based on a theme rather one particular sound. Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 14:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: per above. -- Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 14:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Alex mentions in one of his videos that he didn't invent Trock, he merely thought up the name. I think that this is notable, because we don't want to take credit away from Trock artists prior to Alex. I think the album he put together ("Trock on") should be mentioned here too? He says in the aforementioned video that the reason he compiled this album was that he wanted to raise awareness of the genre and Trock musicians other then Chameleon Circuit. Would anyone please add these edits too the page? Thanks. 86.174.232.16 (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC) lumos101

CheekTV
I'm consistently trying to remove the line under 'other video projects' about Day's interview on the CheekTV YouTube channel. It's one video, not a 'project', just shy of 60,000 views; I could name hundreds of other videos in which Day has a prominent role, all of which have more views than this and would thus be considered more notable, but none of which are mentioned. Since this article has a problem of bloatedness I'd like to formally request its removal. (I also wouldn't consider the fiveawesomeguys channel, now defunct for four years, or the BBC Switch videos (also defunct) to be 'notable' but recognise how their view counts and reputation respectively might make them so.) EDIT: Just read the 'multiple issues template' section above and that's exactly what needs to happen. Can't someone just rewrite this so it says 'Alex Day is an unsigned musician who got to number 4 on Christmas Day 2011'? And then only include other information when it becomes absolutely necessary to detail that one fact; YouTube is necessary to explain how it happened, Chameleon Circuit/Sons Of Admirals possibly to illustrate prior attempts ... but that should be all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.54.193 (talk) 11:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Cleaning up some of the fluff
Reading through the discussion on here, it looks like this article has a few problems. In the light of Alex's recent songs on the UK charts, the article looks like it spends too much time talking about Chameleon Circuit (the section on Alex's page is almost as long as the entire Chameleon Circuit (band) page) and a lot of the material in Media and Television needs reliable sources or should probably be deleted. Reading the above talk page, it looks like a lot of this was included to avoid deletion. It's probably mostly redundant now. I think this page makes more sense with a structure something like Early life (include Chameleon Circuit here), and then Musical career with some sort of emphasis on his Mainstream success (getting a song in the top 10 UK charts as an unsigned artist). Maybe break out Media with YouTube and Television. I'm going to take a crack at cleaning this up in the next few days. Thelongwayout (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Questionable Lover
Hey, there anyone from the world of Tumblr. Could we please keep everything 'Cherimon' off the pages of Wikipedia. I can see the humor in it, but a lot of people on here work hard to make this article clean and factual. Thank you. Rottencourse362 (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Relationship Status
Just reminding any newcomers that YouTuber relationship status' are strictly trivial and should only be put in the article should there be a 'personal life' section. Since Alex Day currently does not have this section, can we refrain from any updates on the singer's relationships, truthful or not. Thank ^^ Bottomlivefan95 (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Online allegations
There have recently been scandolous allegations of Alex Day on consent. They could be put under personal life or a new section in the article. While none of this is reputable yet, it may deserve some attention.

http://www.dailydot.com/fandom/tom-milsom-underage-sex-scandal/

http://newmediarockstars.com/2014/03/alex-day-now-involved-in-sexual-misconduct-allegations-asked-to-be-pulled-from-dftba-records-as-well/

http://nyulocal.com/entertainment/2014/03/14/sexual-abuse-allegations-rock-youtube-community/

31415equalspi (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)31415equalspi


 * These aren't the kind of sources that would justify including such material in the article. "Day admitted to having been, in the past, manipulative without realising it, but denied ever engaging in underage or non-consensual sex" isn't the sort of thing one can usefully add to a WP:BLP.


 * I've revised your section heading to something more neutral, per some guideline that deals with such things. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

How about bbc? http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/26664725 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.61.32.174 (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The only reliable source here is the BBC one, and nothing in that short report would support a subheader like the one I removed here. This is exactly the kind of thing that WP:LIBEL was written for - while the issue may be notable enough for inclusion in a sentence or two, we must not go beyond reliably sourced statements by alluding to criminality or any other specific wrongdoing. I'd also highlight risks like synthesis - for example: "allegations are made about various people, Person X responds to the general concept behind the allegations, therefore the allegations must be about Person X."


 * Happy to discuss further here or at the BLP Noticeboard, but as with all biographies of living people, please don't add anything to the article on issues like this, without ironclad reliable sources which exactly reference the matters you wish to include. Euryalus (talk) 11:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

A lot of the references for the Life and Career section go to dftba.com, a website that has stopped selling his CDs and merchandise following the YouTube abuse scandal (at his own request) and so no longer has pages with information about him or his music. JoannaPearce (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC) edited JoannaPearce (talk) 13:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

There really needs to be something about this added to the "Hiatus" section. That is the reason he's on this hiatus, after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.160.212 (talk) 00:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you sure? I seem to remember the "Hiatus" section was in the article long before the allegations appeared. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I added the 'hiatus' section at the same time, or just after, the sexual abuse allegations were released. It included a brief mention of why he was on hiatus, but you removed it. -- BZTMPS ★ ·  (talk?   contribs?)  16:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of Day
Under the header "Reception", it should also be noted that Day received widespread criticism from fans upon his release of the video "Big Girls in Costumes". After the initial backlash, Day said on his official blog it was intended to be satirical (blogpost). However many people explained why the satire did not work in this case (buzzfeed article), including fellow YouTuber Megan Tonjes who's criticism was that the things that he said were "too real" to come across as satire, and were far too similar to the things larger-bodied people hear on a daily basis (video).

Day responded to the backlash by making the video "unlisted", saying "I’m not going to take the [blogpost explaining the video was meant to be satire] down because I don’t want to pretend this didn’t happen - running away from mistakes isn’t how you solve them - but I have made the video unlisted so you can only see it if you have the link. I think that’s a good compromise between not risking more people being hurt by the content but also not trying to hide the mistake. I’ve also taken the ads off it." (blog post).

Not sure how much of this can be used, but I feel a much more balanced viewpoint of this creator's work is needed, starting with the largest amount of criticism he received for a video.

Shorty29 (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)shorty29

This suggestion was made over a month ago- can we please get on this?? This wiki article has been accused of being deliberately biased in favour of day. Let's prove that wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spearmintsorbet (talk • contribs) 18:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ but don't expect it to stay around, I'm not sure the sources are very reliable. -- BZTMPS ★ ·  (talk?   contribs?)  23:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Renouncement of friendship by Charlie McDonnell
It should now be noted somewhere on the page (perhaps in the personal life section) that Charlie McDonnell released a statement on his official blog/website saying he no longer considered Alex a friend. This is due to a number of allegations made against Alex on Tumblr. Charlie admitted to only having as much information as everyone else and that his assumptions are based on that information, but he said that some allegations definitely appeared "more valid" than others.

He also said he regretted not standing up to Alex more when it came to Alex repeatedly cheating on his girlfriends (which Charlie was aware of).

Sexual Absuse, Consent and Losing Friends.

Some notable quotes from the statement:

"Alex Day, one of the accused, has been a friend and housemate of mine for the last seven years, and during the period that I lived with Alex I did become aware of instances in which he’d cheated on his girlfriends. While this did make me very uncomfortable, the major regret I have about our relationship as friends is that I feel I was too lenient with him about what he was doing. We talked a few times about his cheating, and I let him know that it was something I disapproved of, but ultimately I left any further decisions up to him. I’m ashamed of this, in hindsight. I had urges to talk to his girlfriends about what was going on, but I never found the courage to do it personally. I didn’t want to spoil mine and Alex’s friendship, or our living situation, and so I let it slide. I never want to be that person again."

"I just don’t feel able to call Alex a friend of mine anymore"

Shorty29 (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Shorty29

✅ -- BZTMPS ★ ·  (talk?   contribs?)  20:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Unreliable sources and dead links
Expanding on my previous post, I'd like to point out that a large amount of the sources cited in this article go to web pages that no longer exist. As I'm fairly new to editing Wikipedia, I'm not sure whether this is okay or not, but I've decided it's probably worth pointing them out.

2. Z. (13 August 2008). "Time Lord Rock: Music from the Ashes of Gallifrey". GeekDad.

3. "Article from Asylum.co.uk". Retrieved 31 August 2011.

4. Day, Alex. "The new single – 'Lady Godiva'". Alex Day.

6. Holiday, Ryan. YouTube and Chart Sensation Alex Day the Future of Music?. Forbes. 12 June 2012.

18. "Chameleon Circuit (CD)". DFTBA Records web site.

20. "Parrot Stories [CD]". DFTBA.

21. "117% Complete [CD + Buttons]". DFTBA.

22. "The World Is Mine (I Don't Know Anything) [CD]". DFTBA.

23. "Soup Sessions: Acoustic [CD]". DFTBA.

26. "Unsigned Alex Day single sells over 50k in a week – more than Coldplay". Retrieved 25 December 2011.

29. Day, Alex. "Press". Alex Day.

30. Holiday, Ryan.Indie Musician Alex Day’s Next Big Move. Forbes. 13 June 2012.

31. "Three new songs!". Alex Day.

37. http://alexdaymusic.com/post/37789723604/why-music-should-be-an-event%7C Announcement of Stupidfest

38. Alex Day Music

58. "Fact Sheet". Alex Day web site.

Of the remaining references, most of them appear to be reliable, however there do seem to be blog posts and other content that doesn't appear to match WP:BLP criteria for reliable sources.JoannaPearce (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Sexual Abuse Allegations
I have noticed in the pages history that all mention of the sexual abuse allegations levied against Day have been removed I believe these should be reinstated with the following sources applied:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/26664725

http://charliemcdonnell.com/sexual-abuse-consent-and-losing-friends/

http://erikalynae.tumblr.com/post/79384577696/i-feel-like-there-should-be-a-collective-post-of

http://www.dailydot.com/fandom/alex-day-sexual-assault/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.McFadden1993 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean, the mentions of allegations are there for me? It's not been edited for a while. -- BZTMPS ★ ·  (talk?   contribs?)  15:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2014
His book, it is not the first 270 copies that get signed. Quote from his own website "The first thousand physical books will be signed and hand-numbered; the first 270 will be given the name of one of the 270 London Underground stations." Just wanted to add that :)

85.221.112.147 (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)Kristoffer Tandberg


 * Thank you, ✅ -- BZTMPS ★ ·  (talk?   contribs?)  21:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Merge of The Underground Storyteller
I'm about to merge The Underground Storyteller based on this debate, so I thought I would preserve a link to the extremely underpopulated talk page here. If you would like to discuss the merger, please do so below. StewdioMACK (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Sexual Manipulation Alleations
Why is this section so prominent in the article? The BBC is the only source and it seems to dictate unproven criminal activity by Day. I am not saying the man is innocent I am just wondering why the accusations cannot be filed simply under personal life. After all, there was no criminal investigation, no worldwide public scandal and no further sources other than the BBC articles on his departure and return from You Tube. Bottomlivefan95 (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC) Bottomlivefan95 (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the header for now, but left the personal life section at the top of the article. Unless someone can provide reason behind one source based on these claims is worthy of a headline, I will encourage the page should be left this way.Bottomlivefan95 (talk) 11:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The allegations completely changed his career and life; it led to a gap in content from him, a huge loss in fanbase, his deleting of his channel, and if you search for his name on Google, the vast majority of links are referencing the allegations. They are pretty much attached to him now. Therefore, I don't think that having 'sexual manipulation allegations' as a subheading goes against WP:UNDUE, especially since the BBC is generally seen as a good, impartial source. There are two sources, not one, both of which include quotes and information from other places such as Charlie. There are a lot of other places which prove the allegations, however are unreliable so can't be placed there (such as tumblr posts). Also, it's needed for article structure; the two paragraphs are related, but unrelated to the larger section, so surely they should be put in their own subsection? It looks better that way. -- BZTMPS ★  ·  (talk?   contribs?)  02:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I agree, it does tidy up the article and will be willing to see it return. However, is it possible the overall wording of this section could be reviewed? I feel as if it leans more toward the side of the allegations are absolutely true, rather than currently unfounded. Examples of this include the You Tubers disregarding his apology and the qoutes used seemingly out of context. Bottomlivefan95 (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC) Bottomlivefan95 (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, upon reviewing the section and sources itself, I see that the section is fine as it stands. Bottomlivefan95 (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Alex Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://alexday-shitstorm.tumblr.com/post/79571587250/on-consent

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 one external links on Alex Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/65l6OWqbF?url=http%3A%2F%2Fhangout.altsounds.com%2Fnews%2F144047-alex-day-releases-single-lady-godiva.html to http://hangout.altsounds.com/news/144047-alex-day-releases-single-lady-godiva.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00mwyfl
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.youtube.com/user/ChartJackersProject
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/pudsey/news/news090909.shtml
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article6914409.ece
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://new.uk.music.yahoo.com/blogs/chartwatch/5358/week-ending-november-21st-2009/
 * Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/5wc3PkIws with https://web.archive.org/web/20110715105521/http://www.popjustice.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4212 on http://www.popjustice.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4212
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chartstats.com/chart.php?week=20091121

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Alex Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111011000945/http://dftba.com/product/ww/Soup-Sessions-Acoustic-CD to http://dftba.com/product/ww/Soup-Sessions-Acoustic-CD
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://hangout.altsounds.com/news/144047-alex-day-releases-single-lady-godiva.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111221075952/http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7CCC01B887254707&feature=plcp to https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7CCC01B887254707&feature=plcp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00mwyfl
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.youtube.com/user/ChartJackersProject
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/pudsey/news/news090909.shtml
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article6914409.ece
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://new.uk.music.yahoo.com/blogs/chartwatch/5358/week-ending-november-21st-2009/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chartstats.com/chart.php?week=20091121

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Lack of clarity
Unclear what world record he tried to break with Stupid Stupid, as mentioned in the article Starchman46 (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Clarification added DenimPirate (talk) 07:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)