Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Denner


 * 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. No consensus to keep, subject requested deletion. Tim Song (talk) 01:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

John Denner

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

2010032510054568 - Borderline notability; subject requests deletion of the article. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. - Philippe 23:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC) ≤ March 2010 John Denner is caught miming to a version of the Eddie Van Halen 'Beat It' solo - as played by UK guitarist Phil Hilborne www.philhilborne.com The offending video had been watched nearly half a million times. YouTube removed the video as it was a clear case of impersonation & copyright violation.
 * Note the article has been cut down significantly in the run up to this discussion (see ) by a user who I assume is the subject. The prior version contained some uncited biographical information but did give some sources which might be useful if it is decided to keep the article. Guest9999 (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I note that the subject maintains his own web site, so he doesn't seem to have a problem with being a public figure. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I feel like he is notable with those sources. I would rather like an explanation from him, per Phil Bridger, as he is still in the limelight with or without this page. And, as far as I can tell, this page is not negative in the slightest. Silver  seren C 17:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the reason why John Denner wants to shut his page down - he has been exposed as being an opportunist and a fraud. ≥ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.113.11 (talk) 01:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC) — 86.140.113.11 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Ah, I see. But then, that gives us even more reason not to delete the article. If he's a fraud, then he's a fraud, we shouldn't cater to him. Silver  seren C 01:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep seem notable enough, and apparent reasons for subject wishing deletion do not seem good ones. I have never been all that willing to delete a proper articel at the request of a subject who maintains his own web=page or otherwise self-publicizes, in any case. DES (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The sources cited in the article do not seem to meet the Reliable Source test. Neither do any of the allegations about him miming his work - it's all just blogs. If any one has a Reliable Source about that, and is willing to add it to the article, I will change my vote. --MelanieN (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The New Haven Register, The Courant, and the International Business Times are classified as blogs to you? Perhaps you're mixing up the word blog with newspaper? Silver  seren C 19:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * When I said "it's all just blogs" I was referring to the claim that he was caught miming to someone else's music; sorry if I wasn't clear. That claim appears to have no reliable sourcing, but rather to have appeared on one blog and been copied onto other blogs. As far as I am concerned that claim is unverified, asserted here by a SPA and unconfirmed online, and we should not give it any credence or let affect our decision. But as for the references given in the article: the "New Haven Register" link goes to the paper's home page rather than to an article; the International Business Times item is a press release; that leaves the Hartford Courant article, plus the Howard Stern item which appears to be quoting material supplied by the subject. Maybe that's notable enough for you; it's not for me. --MelanieN (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 00:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources are enough to establish notability and the reason the subject has for wanting to be removed is petty and of no concern to Wikipedia. Silver  seren C 19:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

John Denners miming is not just blogs - YouTube would not have removed the videos if there was not a clear case of copyright violation. That is a fact verifiably with youtube. Also, the person who John Denner was impersonating is a consultant editor for a global guitar magazine (guitar techniques) and the editor and others there will confirm that the miming and taking credit for someone else's work happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.242.180 (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC) — 86.167.242.180 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Then I look forward to seeing the links (other than blogs) which you will provide. Youtube just says "this video has been removed by the user". The only way I found ANY evidence of this rumor online was to search for the terms "John Denner" and "miming" - and then I found claims clearly all copied from the same source, most likely from a blog called "truth in shredding." Google searching for other combinations, such as "john denner" "beat it" or "john denner" "van halen", did not turn up anything about it being a fake. As I said, I am open to changing my mind if shown the evidence. But do take a look at WP:R about what kinds of sources are considered reliable and what are not. And in the meantime, I will be VERY disappointed in us Wikipedians if we are ready to believe and act on any old internet rumor that anyone posts here. --MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This discussion is supposed to be about the existence of this article, rather than its content. I'm still undecided about notability, but agree that we should not be taking into account unsubstantiated rumours when judging such notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete On the fence with this one--there are 2-3 good references, but this strikes me as a some kind of variant of WP:Oneevent--it seems the only reason he's notable is he plays guitar well and has only one hand. Is that enough? --Nuujinn (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He plays guitar well, yes, that's not one event. The sources are enough in terms of coverage in order to establish notability, regardless for the reason for that notability. Silver  seren C 20:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm not being clear--yes, he does play guitar well, but so does my brother. There are enough articles about him to make him somewhat notable, but is he notable for any other reason than he plays guitar well despite missing a hand? In other word, does he meet WP:MUSIC? And if he had use of two hands, would we be talking about him? --Nuujinn (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.
 * This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries.
 * He could possibly meet 12 as well, though i'm not sure how long the Howard Stern Show went for in covering him. Silver  seren C 20:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep News coverage, and appearances on notable shows like Howard Stern make him notable. Confirm the identity of the person asking to have the article taken down.  I don't see why anyone wouldn't want a Wikipedia article that brings attention towards them and thus helps their career.    D r e a m Focus  06:02, 3 April 2010 (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.