Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon the Postman


 * 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. — Jake   Wartenberg  22:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Jon the Postman

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

Completing nomination on behalf of anonymous editor at IP 81.111.114.131, who has put a rationale on the article's talk page which reads "Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Coverage seems to be mostly trivial, and it would appear this gentleman is "famous" for having misbehaved at a number of small gigs. He may perhaps be notable as one of the few people in the audience who didn't go on to great success. An interesting anecdote, but little more." Michig (talk) 11:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Bringing this here as an anonymous editor has attempted to AFD it but only added a template to the article. Personally I see no valid reason for deletion. Clearly passes both WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC, and the coverage presented in the article is only that found on the web. Music weeklies from that period included further coverage which is not available online. He initially became famous for mounting the stage at other people's gigs and singing "Louie Louie" but went on to form a band, perform regularly, and release two albums, which sold 17,000 copies between them in their original vinyl formats (more when reissued on CD). He is a famous figure from the Manchester punk scene and when the legendary Electric Circus venue closed down, the final gig, which included The Fall, Joy Division, Buzzcocks, John Cooper Clarke, Steel Pulse, etc., closed with Jon performing "Louie Louie" (by invitation).--Michig (talk) 11:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please identify specifically which elements of WP:MUSIC you believe he meets. Remember that the preamble says "may".  Remember that for #1 and #4, coverage should be specifically about the subject.  Worth noting that in serious retellings of the Pistols gig (i.e. most things that aren't 24 Hour Party People), Jon is mysteriously absent.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Significant coverage in reliable sources means that he passes both. The review in Q constitutes this, and he has received significant coverage in several books (and no, the books don't have to be specifically about him as long as they give him significant coverage) including Stewart Home's book Marci, sporchi e imbecilli. Attraverso la rivolta punk, and he received plenty of coverage in the music weeklies back in the day. If he isn't mentioned a lot in retellings of the Sex Pistols gig, that's probably because he simply stood in the audience at that gig - I wouldn't really expect detailed coverage of that.--Michig (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep the sources present in the article confirm notability. Nev1 (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, I think. The guy is all over Dave Haslam's book Manchester, England.  Not only that, this page from Breaking into heaven by Mick Middles includes the phrase 'in the manner of Manchester punk legend, Jon the Postman ...'  I think we can agree he's notable when authors start to use him as an example of a style.  Meets WP:MUSIC, anyway.   Mr Stephen (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources demonstrate the truth of what is said. They don't demonstrate that the claims are substantial. First off - he's a postman. Really? With a name like "Jon the Postman", the thought never would have crossed my mind. Next - he was at the gig. So were around 40 other people, almost all of which actually did something. Then the description, which the cite doubtless refers to verbatim, but without supporting reasoning. Misbehaviour - I've seen plenty of people try to take the stage at gigs, it's nothing special, and whose gigs they are is irrelevant. His band released an album, which happens to include a since-notable artist, but otherwise makes no impact. Then comes another one, with similar results. There were sessions for a third, but nothing shows up. The first album is issued on CD, with results similar to the first. He went to Uni, moved to San Francisco, moved back again. He featured as a background character for comedic effect in a film, and we have a subjective commentary on that role. It is then claimed that a comparison is drawn between him and Sarah Palin. This is true to an extent - in 12 paragraphs, he is mentioned and described briefly at the end of paragraph 11 - a textbook case of "trivial" coverage. The source material need not be about him, but the particular coverage must be. The citations are somewhat misleading, in that there seems to be a presumption that a source cited must contribute to notability, one should check the sources before merely accepting them blind. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that he is/was a postman, 'misbehaved' at gigs, didn't have a 'hit record', etc. in your view seems to demonstrate a lack of notability, when in fact they are not relevant to notability in this case. Notability isn't an award for achievement, it's simply a consequence of having received significant coverage in reliable sources. Sources cited in the article must merely support facts presented in the article, they don't all need to demonstrate notability. Similarly, it isn't necessary for every statement to demonstrate or even contribute to the subject's notability; They must simply be relevant and sourced. The multiple sources that do constitute significant coverage demonstrate the notability of the subject.--Michig (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources cited in the article must merely support facts presented in the article, they don't all need to demonstrate notability. However, *something* must.  There's nothing in the article which suggests what this person's contribution to the field is.  It reads like a well-sourced anecdote.  The article, and the supporting references suggest he was notable for just being there.  It's not necessary for every statement to imply notability, but there must be at least one which does.  A couple of people have written about him in passing.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll say it again: Jon the Postman has received significant coverage in several sources, including a two-page entry in Alex Ogg's No More Heroes book, which is an encyclopedia of UK punk artists. he also has a couple of pages dedicated to him in Stewart Home's book, and lots of coverage in Dave Haslam's book. Familiarise yourself with WP:GNG please.--Michig (talk) 07:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The former seems trivial (being effectively a directory), and the latter wouldn't be significant (much of a chapter, maybe - a couple of pages, no). GNG is not absolute - it suggests a presumption.  Plenty of things have what some would believe to be "coverage in multiple reliable sources", which aren't actually notable.  Again, what is this guy's contribution and influence, other than simply being there?  81.110.104.91 (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ogg's book is only a directory in as much as every encyclopedia is a directory, i.e. not at all. Do you actually have any credible arguments for deletion?--Michig (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have any credible arguments for keeping? Again, what is the significant contribution of influence this person has had?  One of the sources says "a committed and omnipresent figure on the punk and post-punk scene in Manchester", which is a vague statement which says nothing for what he has actually done.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as WP:N is clearly met by sources provided above. Hobit (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2009 (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.