Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Duran


 * 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. Let's shut down this circus of socks. T. Canens (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Jeff Duran

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

At first glance this article looks well referenced but a closer look says otherwise. The same link to Duran's home page looking like multiple references. A bunch of links to imdb. A copy of the wikipedia article hosted by MTV. Allmusic listing with no coverage. A shop. A moviestation.org link that doesn't mention Duran. A movies.yahoo.com link that doesn't mention Duran. Passing mentions on non reliable sources. A Wired page that makes a minor mention of a show but make no mention of Durand. A "celebrity gossip site" paparazzi blog. A fan listing (xmfan) that doesn't mention Duran. Other listings. A site were people upload mixtapes. None good with two possible exceptions. There is two dead links (currently failing verifiability) to AllBusiness.com. Looking at the article titles and the way they are used suggests they are there (like other references) to verify related info and not to provide any coverage of Duran. This article is such a major case of bombardment trying to fake notability that it is almost a hoax article. I found nothing better to use. Delete due to the lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I currently have one of the subject's albums at AfD (see Articles for deletion/Cursed Since Birth, the same SPA creator is the only keep !vote) and was going to take another look at related articles once that clears AfD. The sourcing on this group of articles is just dreadful. No clear evidence of in-depth independent coverage. No evidence of charting. No evidence of notable awards. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:57, *
 * Keep (Do Not Delete) - The article has been maintained for six years and now it's time to take down? How about suggesting a way to improve the article then some personal vendetta against this performer. All the Wikipedia editors and people who contributed to this article for six years must be wrong too. How many more references does this need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎JosephDann (talk • contribs)
 * It's not about the number of references, it's about the quality of them. A single long indepth article entirely devoted to the subject in the Washington Post, LA Times or Moskovskaya Pravda would make pretty much all the notability problems go away. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete obvious attempt at refbombing to puff up the article and make it look like he's all that when really there's almost nothing at all to him. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I suggest finding the appropriate links to back up notability and deleting those that don't provide any. The article had been rated decent and ok by wiki standards for 6 years. Now it's open season on this performer for some reason deleting his albums and other projects. Instead of insults like that from TENPOUNDHAMMER and merging, how improving  the artice?--JosephDann (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Improve the article with what? We've already said. There are no sources with which the article can be improved. Everything only mentions him in passing or not at all. Sources have to be explicitly about him. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Have to agree the links for this article are messed up. Dandurand's notability is established below (Please note that a number of Wikipedians have contributed to this article since 2007 with little disagreement until August 2012). He is also known as Jeff Duran and J.J. Star -
 * In the early 1990s, child actor since when is IMDB not reliable?
 * Dandurand appeared on 'Wonder Years'
 * Jeff has appeared in films, televison shows and hosted successful radio programs.
 * Successful Comedian J.J. Star
 * Please see link to allmusic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.125.74 (talk) 11:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:IMDB for the consensus on IMDB. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Allmusic listing is blank — it doesn't have a bio or anything. Being called "successful" is entirely subjective. It's just a peacock word people throw around to make themselves sound like all that. By what merit is his "success" judged? Also, a commercial site like The Comedy Store, whose main purpose is to sell a product, isn't a reliable source. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think this rule in Wikipedia should be enforced here: ...."But Wikipedia does not allow editors to improve an article with their own criticisms or corrections. Rather, if a generally reliable source makes a false or biased statement, the hope is that another reliable source can be found to refute that statement and restore balance. (In extreme cases, a group of editors will agree to remove the verified but false statement, but without adding any original commentary in its place.)" Since the performer uses differen't names there is a confusion here as to what part of his career deserves notability. I have contributed to this article over the years and at one time had a friendship with the performer through my ex. I will continue to find the appropriate sources so we don't lose info this talent. Deleting it makes fellow wikipedians look foolish for enforcing it's importance to begin with, and we know that's not the case.  --JosephDann (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)mike
 * What makes you think that we're using our own criticisms? We're using the general notability guidelines and saying that he fails them. "Losing info" is not a vaild argument; see WP:LOSE. We do know it's the case, because we've explained to you plain as day that you need reliable, third party sources that talk about him in depth. Also, what the hell made you think "different" has an apostrophe in it? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - I commented at the corresponding AfD that the subject had been described (on a blog) as PeekYou's "most influential comic on the web" but I haven't managed to find any reliable sources to back even that claim up. As it stands I think the article itself fails WP:GNG. I also have concerns about Belligerence: The Journey of JJ Star (Note: the albums in his Discography link to redirects which link back to Jeff Duran). Stalwart 111  (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Comment - Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities:
 * 1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.


 * Wonder Years is a notable show and he appears in two episodes.


 * 2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.


 * The venues this comedian plays like Comedy Store, Whisky are not considered notable but imo prove he is a headliner and deserves mention.Two movies have been made about the subject that are to be released this year. IMDB and a Celebrity News site back this up however are not viewed as significant enough.


 * 3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.


 * Having Lady Gaga and others appear on his release is pretty significant.
 * There are countless Mixtapes that are listed on Wikipedia for some reason are excepted but not a release on Island/Def Jam? One that has Lady Gaga as a featured artist?'''
 * The problem AMAZON, Itunes, IMDB and anything that backs this up is not considered notable. My suggestion after I fix the article is the following: Trim some excess fat but don't delete this subject as a notable entertainer.
 * --JosephDann (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * ALL INAPPROPRIATE LINKS AND REFS HAVE BEEN REMOVED. ONLY CONTENT TO BACK UP SUBJECTS NOTABILITY HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED TO PROVIDE DEPTH AND PROOF OF THIS VETERAN PERFORMER.--JosephDann (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * One !vote per user. You've already argued your point several times. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ten Pound Hammer is right - several editors have already asked you to have a read of the various Wikipedia policies that apply to this discussion including WP:N and WP:V as well as WP:IMDB which is still being relied upon as an appropriate reference, which it is not. I thoroughly disagree with your assertion that "all inappropriate links and refs have been removed" given you actually repaired the IMDB ref that other editors have already explained is inappropriate, added references to blogs and also added a reference to "paparazzidaily" which is not only a blog but a blog that only lists the subject's radio show in a general directory, as it does many others. The references provided fail to demonstrate the notability of the subject. Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 05:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. Two minor parts as Kid #1 and Boy (uncredited) in single episodes of a >111 epidoe show is not significant roles in multiple television shows, let alone a significant role in a single show. Claiming otherwise is not good for the credibility of one's argument (bolding mine).
 * 2. If it's the same Comedy Store, it is notable but notability is not inherited. Don't know about Whiskey but the same reasoning applies. Nothing there shows "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following". Making two movies about yourself says nothing about fan base or following, just about self.
 * 3. Don't know if you've noticed but Lady Gaga has Lady Gaga on her releases. As does Gossip Girl, Saturday Night Live, Double Exposure, American Idol, So You Think You Can Dance, etc, etc, so on and so forth. Nothing unique or inovative there.
 * Not numbered but the question of "release on Island/Def Jam?" is misleading. The cds byrelease on Island/Def Jam? Duran were not released by those record companies, they may be distributed by a distribtion arm of Island/Def Jam but are not releaed by them. AMAZON, Itunes, IMDB do not back your claims up. Trim some excess fat, what are we left with, anything? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Side-note - I've re-spaced various comments above with new indents and bullet points for easier reading (and a couple of link fixes). I'm almost certain I didn't change the meaning of any of the contributions but please let me know if you think I have. Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 05:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete this artist seems to be trying a little bit of everything but not reaching Wikipedia's notability standards on any of them. Acting roles are not significant here, music and comedy career isn't meeting guidelines either RadioFan (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Comment - At least create a stub on the topic instead of deleting it. The above comments never try and improve the article, they just tear down the subject's credibility. There are refs in this article that include the subject to support notability of this artist. I agree it was a mess but cleaning some of those dead links and refs make it a worthwile read now imo.
 * Per Wikipedia- The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth.
 * The article was improved and now adhears to this.--173.55.125.74 (talk) 05:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC) — 173.55.125.74 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment editors cant fix a lack of notability.--RadioFan (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Given both User:JosephDann and 173.55.125.74 are basically single purposes accounts focussed on this subject, I can only think they are the same person and so are entitled to one Keep/Delete contribution. I don't believe this is a case of intentional sock-puppeting, rather just a SP new editor who sometimes logs in, sometimes doesn't. I have amended the above to Comment in good faith but am happy for someone else to amend if they disagree. Don't think it's worth opening an SPI for. But to the editor in question, please only vote once. You are welcome to your opinion (though you seem the only one to hold that view) which you have expressed several times. It might be time to let this one go (see WP:DEADHORSE) and contribute elsewhere if you have other areas of interest. Stalwart 111  (talk) 01:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep (Do Not Delete) Comment - Re-iterate (The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth.) Dandurand is a comedic legend and worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. This page goes back as far as 2007 and it's only now they say it's not notworthy? I suspect these editors are bringing personal bias into the decision which should not be tolerated! Keep! important radio personality, important child actor and comedian.
 * --Cocoabrown (talk) 03:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, please only vote once. If you continue to register additional usernames for the purpose of voting multiple times then I will open a WP:SPI case. From the top of each AfD when you edit - "using multiple accounts to reinforce a viewpoint is considered a serious breach of community trust". You have made your point several times without adding anything by way of substantive argument as to why the article should be kept. Please leave it at that. Stalwart 111  (talk) 03:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Editors may be interested in this exchange. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * While I was aware of that AfD, that particular SPI escaped my attention (not sure how - maybe I saw it and didn't really make the connection - I must be losing it!). Given the previous warnings and obvious intention to continue ignoring guidelines, would you like to add the above username and IP to that SPI or start a new one? Stalwart 111  (talk) 04:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - all refs and links point are acceptable.--Gonetroppo (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What!?! Another SPA with an interest in nothing but this particular subject? Who would have thought? And with exactly the same inability to format consistently... I'm shocked! C'mon mate, this is just getting silly. I'm going to ask an admin to delete and close. Stalwart 111  (talk) 00:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Gonetroppo has been indef'd as a sock of JosephDann. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Note Request for close was made at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Monty  845  00:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete As indicated in the nom, no deep coverage in 3rd party reliable sources to establish notability. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:05, 12 September 2012 (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.