Talk:Paul D'Amour

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Paul D'Amour. 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/20041206124137/http://toolshed.down.net/bio/paulbio.html to http://toolshed.down.net/bio/paulbio.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080120041541/http://toolshed.down.net/bio/paulbio2.html to http://toolshed.down.net/bio/paulbio2.html

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) 10:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Notability
I had redirected the article on the grounds that it was a poorly sourced WP:BLP that didn’t demonstrate independent notability. I was reverted with no real counterpoint other than to “take it to the talk page”. So...here we are. Waiting for a counterpoint that doesn’t violate WP:INHERITED. Sergecross73  msg me  03:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The story in Bass Player was about D'Amour but admittedly the other articles were more about Tool. For my mind it satisfied WP:GNG. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * How does one interview satisfy the GNG? Sergecross73   msg me  03:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The other articles were also about Undertow in which D'Amour played and included commentary on D'Amour's as well as the other members input. The remainder of his work receives little coverage but his work on Undertow ticks the GNG box (well for my mind anyway). Regards Hughesdarren (talk) 03:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * One Interview (which are often not considered third party coverage considering they are largely first party accounts), passing mentions in album coverage, and performance credits on an album is not a typical path to meeting the GNG. I don’t believe that would hold up at WP:AFD... Sergecross73   msg me  03:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Added two more refs for interviews now, one from Gashaus magazine and the other from Metal Assault. Thoughts? Hughesdarren (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m not familiar with either, nor are they listed at WP:RSMUSIC. Not that they have to be, but I just mean there is no prior analysis as to whether or not they are a reliable source. What’s your argument for them? Sergecross73   msg me  18:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You had asked earlier how one interview satisfies GNG, now there are three interviews from separate sources. The publications don't appear to have ties to recording companies and the interviews are with D'Amour and about him and his bands. Will now try to track down a reference from WP:RSMUSIC. Cheers Hughesdarren (talk) 11:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, sources must be third party, and reliable, to count towards the GNG. My last comment was more that I have no idea if they are a reliable source or not. But as my comment prior to that alluded to, people have differing attitudes on whether or not an interview constitutes third party coverage towards the GNG. To get what I’m referring to, I think WP:INTERVIEW best sums it up. Sergecross73   msg me  16:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, added references in from Allmusic which is on WP:RSMUSIC. Regards Hughesdarren (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but...is Allmusic truly providing significant coverage on a band member? I mean, an AM bio would be helpful for a solo artist like David Bowie or Lenny Kravitz, it general wouldn’t offer dedicated coverage to something Axel Rose or the guitarist for Nickelback, for example. They just...don’t write that sort of content. Sergecross73   msg me  00:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, says he was a founding member of each band and talks about D'Amour leaving Tool and forming the basis for each group. Anyway I'm tired of trying to improve the article further, you seem determined to delete it and not assist in any meaningful way to keeping it, so go ahead. Happy editing Hughesdarren (talk) 09:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sergecross73 has a vendetta against tool and is trying to erase coverage of the band from Wikipedia, He's a fucking troll so i would ignore him and revert whenever he tries to delete the article. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That’s ludicrous. I’m the second biggest contributor to the Tool article. You’ll notice it’s not an “attack page” where I’m “trolling them”, but rather, a Featured Article, the highest rating a Wikipedia article can get. Now, if you’re done with making up stupid theories, are you going to discuss this article’s notability or not? Do you understand the WP:GNG or WP:BLP, and how that plays into whether or not the article should exist? Care to explain? Or are you going to waste everyone’s time with misdirection and avoidance? Sergecross73   msg me  02:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The article should be kept since he's a founding member and important part of the band's history, Justin Chancellor's article has less notable sources yet i don't see you trying to delete it. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:OSE, which explains why the status of Chacellors is irrelevant and not a valid argument to keep this article, and explain to me how this article meets the WP:GNG and WP:BLP without violating WP:INHERITED. Sergecross73   msg me  02:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

To resolve this dispute, you should submit the article to WP:AfD and cease revert-warring. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've taken the liberty of nominating the article on your behalf, please resolve this dispute through discussion at the deletion page and not through revert-warring. Polyamorph (talk) 09:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you for the nomination, that was the next place I was going. To be clear, the reason I hadn’t was because the flow of things here. My first redirect was merely a WP:BOLD edit, my second revert was because no one contested my talk page argument here, and my third one was because the only person participating in the discussion, Hughe, said go ahead. I was trying to follow WP:ATD because I believe a redirect is sufficient, he is a plausible search term.  Sergecross73   msg me  17:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, he didn't say "go ahead" like he meant it, he said "[...] I'm tired of trying to improve the article further, you seem determined to delete it and not assist in any meaningful way to keeping it, so go ahead."... hardly a glowing endorsement for deletion. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It He was the only person engaging in the discussion with me, saying they were giving up instead of countering my argument. Sergecross73   msg me  19:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It??? - Thanks for that. Maybe I'm a bit of a snowflake but at WP:Plants and WP:Australia editors usually work together to save articles and more experienced editors help out less experienced ones. Editing this article was an incredibly frustrating experience mostly as a result of Sergecross73 only wanting to win an argument and to keep moving the goalposts as to what he actually wanted in order to do so. But Sergecross73 is right, at that point I had given up as trying to improve the article to the standard he wanted had become such a time sink. Hughesdarren (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the “it” comment - that was an unfortunate typo or autocorrect or something. But the rest of your argument is silly. I’m not some bad guy just because I feel an article isn’t meeting Wikipedia standards. It’s not inherently bad to pursue redirection when people repeatedly fail to find GNG-quality sources. Sergecross73   msg me  01:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)