Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Lindsay (musician)


 * 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 keep. I see a rough consensus among participants to Keep this article. I think this is partially due to article improvement (through removing promotional content) by BriefEdits so thank you for that. Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Jon Lindsay (musician)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

so this article is suffering from a lot of things, the obvious extreme promotion, "fan cruft" (if you can call paid editors fans) and more importantly a lack of reliable sourcing.

I did some digging yesterday and found that a lot of the content is greatly exaggerated - particularly his involvement, or the significance of his involvement with other notable acts and the fact that the majority of the sources are either unreliable, PR or just simply not coverage. (As an example of the exaggerations, the "praise by vice" is greatly misrepresented - Noisey by Vice, in this case is a column written by a contributor. And I can provide several more examples like this.

If we remove the poorly/unsourced claims, we're not left with much - he's made a lot of music, but very little of it has received any significant in depth coverage to merit a standalone article.

This article is part of a very large WP:WALLEDGARDEN both with respect to the articles themselves and the circular sourcing. PICKLEDICAE🥒 12:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians,  and Oregon. — hueman1 ( talk  •  contributions ) 12:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I am requesting the user Praxidicae be blocked from any further action against the Jon Lindsay page. This person has vandalized the pages of Benji Hughes and American Aquarium, in addition to Jon Lindsay. Jon Lindsay was a member of Benji Hughes for years, and has significant collaborations with American Aquarium across both the Jon Lindsay and NC Music Love Army catalogs.
 * Look at the Benji Hughes page. After deleting sourced material on Jon Lindsay’s page demonstrating his documented involvement in Benji Hughes, Praxidicae says that Lindsay is not mentioned in the few sources on this page. However, none of the backing band members are, and only Lindsay was deleted, as this user Praxidicae is clearly intentionally seeking to erase all instances of Lindsay from the wiki platform as a personal attack. Lindsay’s involvement in Benji Hughes is notable and well documented.
 * Here are sources:
 * 
 * Lindsay clearly visible in performance (many videos), named as band member
 * 
 * It is clearly an attack to deny Lindsay’s valid coverage by significant publications There are many standalone 3rd party features on Lindsay such as this in Pop Matters:
 * Jon Lindsay has been featured on the cover of magazines, and cover sections/sunday arts sections of daily papers like the Charlotte Observer
 * 
 * He has music in film and television shows. This is preposterous.
 * Lindsay has made multiple recordings involving American Aquarium and appeared with them on stage and in the studio countless times. There were sources to support this on the AA page, that were called “nonsense” and an attempt at a walled garden. How is it “nonsense” to cite discography contributions that are significant, that followers of both pages would want to know about? “Dear Mr. McCrory” and the “Love Army” album were covered internationally and that is easily discoverable. Lindsay was the co-founder of the entire project, which had 14 releases that absolutely were covered a lot. Again, this is a personal attack and should be stopped immediately.
 * It is clear that this user is seeking to harm Lindsay’s public page for personal reasons that violate the wikipedia community guidelines and this should be reversed immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:194:827F:85F0:89AD:E42E:E6D9:927C (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * This is extremely serious. I have first-hand intimate knowledge that the contributor Praxidicae is on a personal vindictive mission to defame and slander Lindsay in this as well as other forums. This deletion discussion should be ended immediately and the article to be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:194:827F:85F0:78B9:1F25:E7FA:30A (talk) 13:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I removed this as a pointless PA against the nominator, but she asked me to restore. Primefac (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please sign your comment or we can't treat it as valid. Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Praxidicae is at it again, Praxidicae is on a personal vindictive mission to defame and slander as many people as possible NataliaSweeney (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems like Lindsay meets the nobility guidelines for this standalone article. The suggestion that this page be deleted seems extreme and unwarranted. I did some digging and agree with the judgement that Praxidicae is engaging in vandalism on this and other pages. I find this page informative and do not with to see it deleted. 207.144.210.21 (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete agree with nom, few if any major sources found. He exists, but hasn't garnered much coverage. Please refrain from personal attacks in AfD, there are other forums for discussing issues/harassment. Oaktree b (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The promotional haze here is thick, but sufficient sources exist to cut through it. Allmusic bio, PopMatters, Seattle PI, IndyWeek, Spill, Charlotte Observer (paywalled). That's enough to hurdle bullet 1 of WP:MUSIC and therefore also the GNG. Chubbles (talk) 04:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * (copied from talk page per edit request) I am currently writing a book that involves both Jon Lindsay and Benji Hughes. Suggesting deletion of this article is really nuts, I use it as a resource. If you don't like the tone, ok fine I guess- but, while Lindsay is not Taylor Swift, he has a very well-covered career and an engaged audience in the music media as well as mainstream (for his political work that's not even being discussed by this person that started all of this deletion suggestion nonsense), and your current discussion is overlooking that there are more than 30 sourced feature articles (not just mentions) and reviews about his solo work that are anything but "PR" or whatever has been said. Click on the links, this is significant 3rd party objective coverage, period. Directly about what this artist has made. This is real coverage. Point blank, there are articles here from Vice, Consequence of Sound, Paste Magazine, Magnet Magazine, AOL Spinner, SXSW Official, Time Out NY, The Charlotte Observer, Raleigh News and Observer, Indy Weekly, Pop Matters; he's been on tv personally, his songs are IN tv and film; there are cover stories in magazines, exclusively about Lindsay, yet the person that started this says "can't find major coverage." If the articles already cited at the bottom of this page that directly review and speak to Lindsay's records and tours and projects and production work don't meet guidelines, then deleted 80% of this entire platform. Lindsay has far more legit press than most articles I see on here. I'd like to flag and re-share for open discussion review the top 10 feature articles, exclusively about Jon Lindsay and his work, and that already appear on the main Jon Lindsay article, but are just being completely overlooked in this really crazy discussion about deletion. You all are also not discussing any of his press from the NC Music Love Army, which has political and historical significance involving major figures like William Barber, and none of that is even surfacing here. I need to be included on this discussion and I can't believe that the facts are being skirted over so far. Please allow the voices in here of the experts on this subject. Also, there's something going on with the person that started all of this in terms of a weird direction to take. This article could easily be edited if needed. Scrapping a quality reference that I use (right now daily) would exactly the opposite of what this platform is supposed to be. Thanks,YF Terry Ukenation (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC) My request is simply: please include my vote for "keep" this reference article on the deletion discussion page. For the many reaseons I explained. But if nothing else, "Keep". Thank you. Ukenation (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Article can be cleaned up. There is enough coverage of the artist and his work to satisfy WP:SINGER. While most is local, there is sufficient non-local coverage too. (e.g. Consequence, PopMatters, Vice) -- BriefEdits (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: As somebody who's edited the article heavily these last few days, the quality of the sources is really not there. While the subject's debut album is well covered, none of his other works remotely come close to notability, which fails WP:SINGER. While there are a lot of sources for other aspects of his career, they are almost always passing mentions or underdeveloped sources. Seeing past breadth of sources with shallow coverage or good coverage but either restricted to the debut album or local profiles of the subject, I find it difficult to confidently endorse this article for keep. Changing to weak keep for now awaiting original nominator's source analysis. -- BriefEdits (talk) 00:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * comment I'll be posting a source analysis later this evening to refute the claims here that this meets GNG based on the sources which are all dubious, passing mentions, blackhat SEO and outright unreliable. PICKLEDICAE🥒 12:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is straight copy and paste as I’ve seen PICKLEDICAE use this exact same statement on countless pages NataliaSweeney (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment interested in seeing the source analysis, willing to reconsider, depending on analysis of course. Oaktree b (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I concur. I will attempt to clean up the article in the meantime. -- BriefEdits (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have contributed to the article substantially and added a strong amount of quality, standalone, dedicated Lindsay coverage. And I appreciate the other recent inclusions and edits that show the clear and obvious merit of this artist article, and that easily demonstrate that GNG are met. There was already a boatload of great references on here; but it is now 100% completely without question that there are over 50 pieces of direct Lindsay press here that are direct reviews or direct coverage of his records and tours from high quality sources. The fact that the wiki community is standing by letting a wild comment from one person such as "the sources ALL of which are dubious" go unchecked should bother every single person here that cares about the integrity of this platform, like myself, who uses this page as a reference to the very clearly documented coverage on this artist's career and work. Will somebody here that cares about the integrity of this site and not the obvious attack attempt by one person please directly comment on how these direct features and reviews are in any way "dubious, passing mentions, blackhat SEO and outright unreliable" when I sat here this morning and read every single link and can verify--as can anyone with eyes--that these are quality music reviews and news articles? Some real additional oversight is clearly needed in this discussion to curb this insanity. Lastly, let us not forget that this argument against the page was initially begun as "the page is too promotional" saying it shows so much favorable press for Lindsay put up by a "paid PR person." When that argument was not supported by the wiki community, the argument shifted to GNG. The point is, it is super clear to anyone paying attention to this at this point that there's something untoward afoot with the intentions of the original deletion discussion, as it has always been meritless, yet keeps being pushed by this one person- for any reason at this point. The point is to get the article down for Lindsay, guidelines to the wind, therefore I am in support of the comments that something is deeply unsettling and wrong here. Who will address all of this? KEEP THIS PAGE and address the attack. Ukenation (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, the sources given don't support keeping it. I'm of mixed opinion otherwise, but have voted !delete. Oaktree b (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * At this point it is now a re-written article. And a very good one. Regarding GNG, please refer to the below 18 feature articles about Lindsay that are sourced on the article page. Regardless of any supposed forthcoming source analysis from anyone else, GNG can be settled once and for all right now by reviewing what's already here:
 * Consequence, Daytrotter, Paste Magazine, Vice/Noisey, Charlotte Observer, Performer Magazine, Pop Matters, Big Takeover, Indy Weekly, Encore (magazine cover and feature), Shuffle Magazine, Creative Loafing, Blurt, Charleston City Paper, WUNC (NPR), Star News, Charlotte Magazine, Spill Magazine. Since it has been falsely alleged that "all" the articles on the entire page are are "dubious" and "suspect", let's just keep it to this list for easy resolution. I find all of the sourced material (60 links) on the article helpful, but I'm asking others to quickly review JUST the above listed outlets and coverage, as the GNG argument is instantly put to bed once and for all here. Thank you. Ukenation (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please go through the sources I just highlighted and explain how these don't meet GNG. That will be impossible for you to do. Deletion discussion guidelines specifically state that articles can and should be improved if there is a perceived issue. That has been done. This article has been greatly improved, and what's here now must be addressed. According to the guidelines, you *must* say how and why these top examples of specific coverage that I highlighted are somehow not satisfactory. Come on people, if you can't do that specifically, you aren't discussing the facts and you're just "voting" with another agenda. KEEP THIS ARTICLE and DISCUSS THE CONTENT SPECIFICALLY Ukenation (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please have some sense of decorum and wait for the discussion to develop rather than screaming through the internet to get people to change their minds. Let your arguments stand for themselves. You don't need to rehash the same points ad nauseum and rush other editors. And baselessly accusing other editors of having some sort of nefarious agenda is both reductive and frankly immature. -- BriefEdits (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * noted. I'm not trying to yell. It's just been bothersome to me that this article was suggested for deletion without the easy edits that could have been made if needed. I will stand down and trust the process. Thank you. Ukenation (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Comr Melody Idoghor  (talk)  16:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: Final relist. , you mentioned a source analysis, which would be useful to have; I encourage you to ping current non-SPA participants after having done so. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I see reasonable articles in the Charlotte Observer and Herald Sun. Other sources appear to be either very local or specialized, but they do support the basic notability. It would be ideal to find a source that is 1) substantial and 2) biographical, but I think he squeaks by Notability. Is this guy Elvis? No. Few are. Lamona (talk) 03:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Lindsay easily meets GNG based on the articles highlighted by Ukenation. On top of his solo and production/collaborator coverage, the NC Love Army work is covered extensively in papers of record cited here. Every sentence in this article has a quality source to go with it. This one is clear cut. There are thousands of wiki article pages out here that actually need this discussion, and this is not one of them. -Haley Stimpson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.112.180 (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I am concerned that this discussion is being swamped by socks, but it nevertheless remains the case that, if an artist meets WP:MUSIC, the page should remain, even if that artist or the artist's fans or promotional team really, really want there to be an article, and even if the artist shamelessly promotes himself by courting the press. Chubbles (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I am sending an email requesting additional oversight on this discussion at this time. The relisting of the article for deletion here is not only highly unusual, it's also 100% against WP:GD.
 * This discussion has gone through 2 full rounds/weeks and has reached, at minimum, a "rough consensus" for "keep". Either we have a clear case of a rough consensus for "keep" or you could incorrectly say the debate is still an uncertain tie- but according to WP:GD, even IF it were an uncertain tie at this point after 2 rounds, the article is to be taken out of debate. These are the guidelines. Again, a rough consensus is the desired outcome, and that's exactly what we have here for keep. Ukenation (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * From WP:GD "Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended, and while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors. Therefore, in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice."
 * But there HAS been plenty of participation AND rough consensus for "Keep" during two debates. Enough of this. Ukenation (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep -- The article needs extensive surgery to remove the deluge of cruft and reference spam, and the novella's worth of text and claims above is dubious, but Lindsay does pass, fairly clearly, WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. The Charlotte Observer and Indy Week features are significant coverage in major North Carolina publications, the Popmatters and Consequence of Sound reviews probably count as well since both are fairly major music publications. There is probably more in the gargantuan wall of refs that counts toward WP:SIGCOV but I think these are significant on their own. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2022 (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.