Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Glen Timms


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Glen Timms

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

My research leads me to the conclusion that the subject doesn't meet general notability guidelines or qualify for special consideration due to meeting special notability guidelines for musicians. Sources found are not what I consider to be reliable. Let's not forget to applaud Jimbellizzi for his efforts; it's obvious that he is trying hard to improve Wikipedia, which warrants further encouragement. &mdash;  X   S   G   19:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Some assistance required, please. The AfD template on Daniel Glen Timms shows "this article's entry" as a redlink, which will make things more difficult for inexperienced users.  Anyone know why this is happening or how to fix it? &mdash;   X   S   G   19:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - as nom. &mdash;  X   S   G   19:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Hi, I added on more outside sources to improve the verifiability of this article. A review from Hooked on Music, a live studio interview from WETS (it's on his website, but also have a link to WETS confirming it), and more links to stations who have previously played the music. I feel that he has two full length studio albums that have received a lot of national attention, and additionally we now have reviews and playlists up from outside sources that should allow the article to stay. I apologize it took me so long to get it up, still learning the ropes of Wikipedia! Please let me know if there is more I need. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbellizzi (talk • contribs) 03:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Hi, Jimbellizzi. I think this is the first time you've had experience with the AfD, or Articles for Deletion process.  This is one of the constructs of Wikipedia, where editors make a determination whether articles meet the requirements for being kept on Wikipedia.  There's documentation for how this procedure works here: WP:AfD.  Typically, this page is used for editors to add their comments regarding keeping or deleteing the article.  While lots of editors think that it's a matter of votes, it really isn't, as the process documentation will clarify.  So anyway, I know that you're working hard on the article.  I would recommend that you add your desired resolution outcome to this page (by adding *Keep - followed by the reason you think the article should be kept.  I'll continue to work with you on the talk page of the article in order to suggest what might be needed to achieve notability. &mdash;   X   S   G   04:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 04:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 05:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It would help us if there was some detailed discussion of the validity of the sourcing. Spartaz Humbug! 05:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. While there are many footnotes, on closer examination the sources don't hold up as WP:RS and various claims made appear to be unsupported by the sources cited. For example, the article says: "Daniel's first independently released demo received the highest-rated "rock" review of the year in 1998 by Music Connection Magazine". The footnote given points to the main website of the Music Connection magazine, http://musicconnection.com. However, no specifics in the reference are given (such as a direct link to the article or the date of publication, name of the article, etc). A search of the http://musicconnection.com website for "Daniel Glen Timms" returns 0 hits. The article then says about "The Highway Home" album:"The album garnered strong support among many commercial, public and community radio stations". Two footnotes are given, one to the webpage of the artist and the other is this link to KTEP radio site. The only mention of the name of the subject there is a listing of his song in the playlist column. No discussion of the song or the artist here and not something that can be characterized as "garnered strong support". We then proceed further in the article to the following statement: "His album, "La La Land," received his highest critical acclaim" with a reference to this Belgian site:http://www.rootstime.be/ The site is not searchable, but after looking around it a bit I could not find a mention of the name of Daniel Glen Timms there. The article then says, in relation to the same album:"with airplay worldwide and on over 130 radio stations". The reference given for this 130 stations claim is this link to the website of a radio station WETS. The page link does not mention either the name of the artist or the name of the album. Moreover, searching the entire website for the name "Timms" produces a single hit, to a long photogaller containing one photograph from a performace by Timms. Nothing about 130 stations here. And so on. Too many basic WP:V problems here. Also, a googlenews search gives 0 hits . Nsk92 (talk) 10:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom fails to meet the notability guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 04:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources do not say what is suggested, which is very sneaky. Seems non-notable, per Nsk92.Yobmod (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.