Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Girgis (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Consensus is that the sources do not support notability. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Luke Girgis
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Blatant promotion for non notable manager/executive. Lacks coverage about himself in independent reliable sources. Notability is not inherited from those he has managed. This is one of two articles on this individual (other being Coptic Soldier). This was was created specifically to push their current projects, not as an encyclopedia article about the person. Current borbardment of sources is: This is promotion from a single purpose account. One of multiple accounts used to promoted around I Forget Sorry! Note same photo used here as in some of the above PR rehashes. This recreated wankfest promo piece should be deleted and not merged because it is spam, is very poorly sourced and the SPA creator is ignoring consensus and gaming the system. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Press Release. Him talking about himself
 * 2) PR about a company, not Girgis
 * 3) minor variation of above PR about a company, not Girgis
 * 4) minor variation of above PR about a company, not Girgis
 * 5) About the band, not Girgis. Betrays a promotional intent in the Wikipedia article as Grigis is a co-manager.
 * 6) About Giertz, not Girgis. Only passing mention of Girgis. Does not verify claim in article.
 * 7) Not an independent source.
 * 8) Just his name on a list. Does not verify claim in article.
 * 9) Him talking about himself to a buddy of his, not independent coverage
 * 10) Him talking about himself, not independent coverage, does not verify claim in article.
 * 11) Not a relible source. Does not really verify claim in article.
 * 12) About Waters, not Girgis. No mention of Girgis. Does not verify claim in article.
 * 13) About Waters, not Girgis. Only passing mention of Girgis. Does not verify claim in article.
 * 14) Has section about Waters. No mention of Girgis. Does not verify claim in article.
 * 15) Not an independent reliable source. Just his name in a list.
 * 16) An interview of Little Sea, not about Grigis.
 * 17) About Little Sea, no mention of Grigis. Does not verify claim in article.

--

User:Duffbeerforme Has repeatedly shown his extreme bias on these pages. You can see his use of the word 'wankfest' in the above, he regularly abuses publishers using terms like this. His general approach is to refer to people as sock puppets, or point out single use accounts as though it makes the content less verifiable. He's an Australian user known in the Australian Music community who has a personal gripe with both the subject of this article and his associated parties. He's been on a personal vendetta for years and you can trace this across numerous pages that have been verified (e.g. Chance Waters, Coptic Soldier, all of which he has previously raised for deletion. He should not have anything to do with this argument for those reasons, he can't separate himself emotionally and is personally known to many people who work in this area.

Please review the sources for yourself, these are in major publications about the largest music media group in Australia. They are independent coverage including full scale interviews in fully independent websites for different media groups. I will review the sources above.

Justthemusic (talk) 03:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Full interview with Telum Media. Henceforth let it be known that on Wikipedia the duffbeerforme approach classifies full length interviews in major media as 'talking about oneself'. This isn't a pub, Duffbeerforme, it's an interview in Telum, the biggest media datebase in the entire Asian and South East Asian region.
 * 2) One of the largest entertainment publishers in Australia covering the acquisition, with a photo of the subject. I like that duffbeerforme says that 'notability of acts he has managed does not constitute notability'. Particularly considering that he has been defeated on AfD for nearly every article of any talent managed by Luke Girgis previously.
 * 3) More coverage of the subject, with a photo of him, rather than a 'minor variation' this is more coverage about it with individual writing from the group. mediaweek are an enormous national publication focusing on the exact issues and individuals this article pertains to. Contrary to what Duffbeerforme has written this article mentions the subject by name 7 times, including in the meta tags. Check for yourself.
 * 4) As above 'minor variation' as quoted by duffbeerforme refers to individual publication generated content AROUND the individual and the acquisition - a major acquisition in the Australian Music Media landscape.
 * 5) No idea what duffbeerforme even means about the subject being a 'co-manager' this article is covering the signing of the talent to Luke Girgis as a manger, about Luke Girgis's company, in an independent publication Luke Girgis has no link to. The entire covers and quotes both Girgis and the talent.
 * 6) As above this article is covering the signing of the talent to Luke Girgis as a manger, about Luke Girgis's company, in an independent publication Luke Girgis has no link to. Covers and quotes both Girgis and the talent.
 * 7) This is published by Australian Music Week, who are an independent government funded source. Please explain what duffbeerforme means, because the data comes from a press kit?
 * 8) His name in a list of attendees, which is what the claim is, that he was invited to etc. - despite the fact this indicates notability in Australian Music it also directly verifies the claim.
 * 9) Is independent coverage, in Australian Music so the 'buddy' relationship is as common as it would be for a tech developer to be covered in a tech magazine by someone they know. The friendly tone doesn't change the fact this is an ongoing independent series with hundreds of episodes that is covering Luke Girgis and covers those similar to him in all other episodes.
 * 10) Independent coverage, does verify claim.
 * 11) Is a reliable source, does verify claims, again duffbeerforme demonstrating bias. He is literally repeatedly claiming all sources 'don't verify claims' even though these same sources are present in the coptic soldier article and have been verified in a previous AfD raised by the same user.
 * 12) About Waters, who Girgis manages and works with - see coptic soldier - does verify claim.
 * 13) About Waters, who Girgis manages and works with - see coptic soldier - does specifically mention Girgis, does verify claim.
 * 14) Has section about Waters. Verifies claim in article.
 * 15) Independent source, list demonstrates notability, ties to claim.
 * 16) An interview of Little Sea, mentions Girgis, demonstrates claim.
 * 17) About Little Sea, does verify claim.
 * Let's look at a few of the claims made above to guage the honesty in that reply.
 * "numerous pages that have been verified (e.g. Chance Waters, phatchance, Coptic Soldier, all of which he has previously raised for deletion." Claims I  have previously raised both for deletion. True for Phatchance eg. But Coptic Soldier? Not in here or |here. If I raised it for deletion then Justthemusic must remember it from deleted pages, from when he had a different account, pages that should have been deleted.
 * "is personally known to many people who work in this area." Really? Name one who even knows who I am.
 * (numbered as at time of nomination for consistency here)
 * 17. Wikipedia page says "In 2015 Girgis oversaw the release "... There is no mention of Girgis overseeing anything, let alone any mention of Girgis.
 * 16. Wikipedia page says "who under his tutelage". Not from this source.
 * 15. How does list is any way demonstrate notability? Press Release from The Seed. Not an independent reliable source.
 * 14. Wikipedia page says "Girgis negotiated a multi album major label deal "...  There is no mention of Girgis negotiating anything, let alone any mention of Girgis. No multi album deal either, a publishing agreement of unspecified extent.
 * 13. Does mention Girgis as I stated above. The extent of the mention "Waters is managed by Luke Girgis at I Forget, Sorry!" That does not verify negotiating anything, let alone a non mentioned multi album deal.
 * It goes on. Some points on two others
 * 5. What do I mean about 'co-manager'. "brand new joint venture between renowned Aussie managers Luke Girgis (Chance Waters, Mind Over Matter) and Matt Cannings (L-FRESH The LION, Chance Waters)." Joint venture, two managers, but Cannings is conveniently ignored in the wikipedia article and above.
 * 10. I may have missed it but I heard no mention of Rehabilitation Counselling at the University of Sydney or Theology at Charles Sturt University. (An aside, says he was born in Melbourne, not Sydney).
 * Even if we put aside the lack of verification of claims none of this provides any depth of independent coverage about Girgis.
 * As for my claimed bias, pot kettle black. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * My favorite part is where you conveniently ignore the great bulk of the sources on the page by saying 'some of the claims'. I also like where you point to single articles down the chain of the entire Wikipedia entry and then pretend that all the statements made must stem from the proceeding reference, as though the ten articles before it and the two audio interviews have no included information.. How about the 10 that proceed it? You are correct though, /some of the article I have built is based on personal knowledge, the same as every other article I have built in a small sub genre of music in which I am an expert, The same as the numerous changes available on my Steve Zimmy account to more than a dozen different band pages. feel free to insert source required rather than AfDing the entire article as you always do, I would be more than happy to edit or source those few statements - which are all completely correct. Your accusations of promotional bias because I don't mention a co-manager is just strange. I didn't even realize Cannings was involved, though I hardly see how that possibly detracts from the notability of the subject. Perhaps I might suggest you contribute something useful to Wiki for once and create a Cannings article, or add his involvement - then you can AfD yourself! Or just F yourself even.

RE the personal aspect, I and multiple other people know exactly who you are, but I am not going to dox a wiki editor in an argument on a talk page, just because they are a biased and abusive and boring person. Justthemusic (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * My favorite part is where you totally ignore all the points made. Instead your stream of adhoms continues.
 * "then pretend that all the statements made must stem from the proceeding reference". (assuming you meant following ref) WP:GOODREFS "A citation must verify the statement in the text." "You need to cite a source that directly supports the statement about his achievement."
 * On that personal aspect, so can't name any then. Because you have No Idea. Perhaps instead you could identify the area in which these people work.
 * on 5 you say "I didn't even realize Cannings was involved". I guess you didn't read the source then. Because you are an expert and already know everything? Except you were wrong. Actually checking sources can be enlightning. Like born in Sydney? Nope, you were wrong there. Was that from your personal knowledge, a source no-one can verify.
 * Let's go through the sources you are pretending that I ignored.
 * 11. "and Mind Over Matter". nope, no mention of them
 * 9. Girgis talking about Girgis is not independent of Girgis
 * 8. Being on such a list does not indicates notability in Australian Music as seen by Wikipedia. Extent of coverage "Luke Girgis (Shock Records, Be Like Children)". does not verify that he "operated as A&R and label director"
 * 7. Delegate supplied bios are not independent of the delegate.
 * 6. "said Be Like Children Director Luke Girgis". Says he is director of the management company, not that he is her manager. Yep splitting hairs on that one.
 * 4,3,2,1. Press releases are not independent relable sources. Count as nothing for coverage for WP:GNG.
 * 2. Where did I write what you claim. As for "defeated", nope not a contest. Articles for deletion/Phatchance, !voted delete (nomination), result deleted. So what afds was I "defeated" in?
 * 3. "Contrary to what Duffbeerforme has written this article mentions the subject by name 7 times, including in the meta tags." I never wrote anything to the contarry. But let's look at the mentions. 1. photo caption. 2. "CEO of Seventh Street Media, Luke Girgis, " 3. "Seventh Street Media is a new company, incorporated after Seventh Street Ventures partnered with Luke Girgis who is CEO of Seventh Street Media.". 4,5,6,7 ? So trivial coverage about him.
 * Justthemusic has shown his extreme bias on these pages. When presented with evidence he replies with arguments about the nominater. He should not have anything to do with this argument for those reasons, he can't separate himself emotionally and is personally known to many people who work in this area. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Please User:Duffbeerforme embarrass yourself by raising some more AfD's and misrepresenting sources. If you would like I can repeatedly reference the same sources 20 times through the article to validate every sentence, that way you can hypocritically and self defeatingly claim bombardment again. You're a total joke, you can complain some more about ad hominem inbetween referring to people as a waste of air and claiming wankfest about articles on individuals personally known to you, that you have repeatedly targeted for more than 6 years. The non biased editors who check the sources will vote keep, stop wasting mine and others times with these stupid AfDs. Ta. Justthemusic (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again when presented with facts you respond with lies and attacks. That needs to stop now. Girgis personally known to me, never met the man, wouldn't know him from a bar of soap. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I participated in the previous AfD and argued for a redirect to Coptic Soldier. I invite, the editor who enacted that redirection, to this discussion. I will look over the resources currently in the article to determine their reliability and independence from the subject. I will then consider whether the additional material constitutes sufficient evidence of the subject's notability sans Coptic Soldier. After these investigations I expect to provide a decision on this AfD.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Please note I just added a Fuurst Media article verifying the Shock Records claim in Brag #671, "Brag#671 by Furst Media .... Shock Records A&R/label director Luke Girgis has left the business, ...". It is worth noting that this is a publication now owned by Girgis, however at the time of writing it was under the direction of Fuurst Media and not associated, so it's an independent source. Justthemusic (talk) 07:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Further to the above, it is worth noting that the single purpose account that he is referring to is my long term Wikipedia account User:Stevezimmy. Not in fact a single purpose account, but rather one in personal conflict with him in regards to an entire genre of music. I no longer have access to this account, hence the new account.Justthemusic (talk) 07:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Multiple SPAs, Blazinthrough, . Iforgetsorry . duffbeerforme (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Was not aware of those accounts, iforgetsorry looks like an official account for the record label, regardless this brings the SPA count to a grand total of two (unless you'd like to count me for losing my login), both of which appear to have a few minor changes and one of which at least in name looks like an official account of the label. Congratulations, better take them all to AfD using your strenuous and special standards. Justthemusic (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that the SPA I was refering to in the nomination was Justthemusic, not Stevezimmy. It's the only SPA I had mentioned then. On the two just above. Blazinthrough + 7 deleted edits including an earlier version of Coptic Soldier. Iforgetsorry + 28 deleted edits including Inkstains prior to it's release. And yep, maybe some more articles should go to afd. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the article in question, it appears that there are unwarranted grounds for its deletion. Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Alternatives_to_deletion

Articles will usually be deleted if there is a consensus to do so. Perusing the comments above, there is clearly not a consensus to delete this article.

'''Administrators considering the deletion of this article should disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith. It is clear that name-calling (eg wankfest) in the above comments is evidence that this process has not been made in good faith.''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus

The user nominating for deletion has not contributed to the article talk page, has made very few edits to the page, and considering that the article is just on 1 year old, has not allowed reasonable time to allow the page to sufficiently expand and grow into a polished article.

Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted

1.	If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD.

2.	If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article.

3.	If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag, this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it.

Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability

1.	The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects.[a]

2.	If you find a lack of sources, you've completed basic due diligence before nominating. However, if a quick search does find sources, this does not always mean an AfD on a sourcing basis is unwarranted. If you spend more time examining the sources, and determine that they are insufficient, e.g., because they only contain passing mention of the topic, then an AfD nomination may still be appropriate.

3.	If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources, using the advice in Wikipedia:How to cite sources, or at minimum apply an appropriate template to the page that flags the sourcing concern. Common templates include.

There appears to be an argument about the authenticity of the subject. According to Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified. (rather than pushing through deletion) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Deletion_of_BLPs

In closing, this article should be allowed to continue to grow into a polished article over time; with the support from credible Wiki editors who are willing to guide the article writer/s through the talk page. It is clear that the article has not had this opportunity. Deleting this page is not appropriate given the information above.

--Benwebboz (talk) 02:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was a long winded way of saying absolutely nothing about the notability of the subject. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

-- I have perused the sources and agree with Justthemusic (talk) in the summary of them. I object to the deletion of this page.

--Benwebboz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * General question, what in his analysis demonstrates the notability of Girgis? What sources provide any depth of independent coverage about him to satisfy WP:GNG?
 * Specific question about #17 above. How does a source that does not mention Girgis possibly verify that Girgis did something? duffbeerforme (talk) 06:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Coptic Soldier. This was the result of the previous AfD. My decision relates to Notability (people) and whether the subject of this article is sufficiently independently notable from the existing article on Coptic Soldier: I don't believe that this has been established. I see no reason why there should be two wp articles with one covering his performance name and the other dealing with subsequent careers under his given name: only one article is necessary. Gsearch has "Coptic Soldier" with 3160 hits whereas "Luke Girgis" has 1790 hits. Any useful content from the current form of this article may be transcluded to Coptic Soldier prior to a redirect.


 * My decision hinges on the sources being used, one has to determine whether they are reliable, independent of the subject and if the coverage is significant / substantial. My opinions on each source at the time of the AfD (see article history here) follow:
 * 1) According to their website, here, "Telum Media is a Singapore, Hong Kong & Sydney registered company founded in 2013 by former PR & journalism professionals who saw the need for a comprehensive media database in Asia." The actual interviewer is not given in the cited article. Independence is questionable due to its PR associations. Alexa ranking of 36,961 in Australia, here.
 * 2) The news site is independent, with editorial oversight, according to this. Alexa gives it an Australian website ranking of 1269, here. As for the article itself, VK, the writer, is also on the editorial team. She acknowledges citing from a media release by the company. The content does mention and quote the subject of the article although it also delves into his company's formation, recent acquisitions and cites their former owners/directors. This article does give substantial coverage of the subject. See next two refs.
 * 3) MediaWeek is an Australian trade magazine; it is independent and reliable. Alexa rates it at 14,258 for Australia here. The article's writer is not specified, content repeats much of the previous article, (both are dated 17 January 2017; determination of direction of commonality is problematic). Its focus is more on the company but the subject is mentioned, cited and a photograph supplied. It appears to be derived from the same PR / media release as above.
 * 4) According to here, it is independent, albeit recently formed (in 2015). It is not ranked by Alexa for Australia, but it is rated at 40,622 for US, here. Content and date similar to above. It appears to be derived from the same PR / media release as previous two.
 * 5) Independent and verifies that the subject jointly managed a band. Not substantial coverage. Website ranked at 2754 for Australia, here. Does not contribute to the notability of this subject.
 * 6) Site is independent and reliable. Verifies that an artist signed with subject's management company. Not substantial coverage. Alexa rating per Australia is 7394, here. Does not contribute to the notability of this subject.
 * 7) Biography supplied by subject's management company as his credentials for a conference presentation. Not independent. Site not ranked by Alexa for Australia, here. Does not support notability of subject.
 * 8) the.Music.com.au is reliable and independent. Alexa rating per Australia is 2754, here. Coverage of the subject is minimal and does not support content in article. Does not support notability of subject.
 * 9) According to here, content is user supplied. Not reliable. No alexa ranking. Author, DW, claims that the subject is "a buddy of mine" hence not independent. Does not support notability of subject.
 * 10) Joy 94.9 is a community radio site, interview verifies that subject of this article is the same person as Coptic Soldier. Does not support separate notability.
 * 11) According to here, the site is run by NK, who is the author of the article. Subject is briefly mentioned but not given substantial coverage. Alexa rating per Australia is 79,416, here. Does not support notability of subject.
 * 12) Subject not mentioned. Alexa rating per Australia is 60,134, here. Does not support notability of subject.
 * 13) the.Music.com.au (see above). Coverage is minimal and does not support notability of subject.
 * 14) Article is not about this subject. Source is certainly independent and reliable (see APRA) but provides no support towards notability of subject.
 * 15) Subject listed as one of 20+ recipients of funding for a management workshop.  Source is independent and reliable but provides no support towards notability of subject.
 * 16) Subject not mentioned. Source is student-based news service. Alexa rating per Australia is 6729, here. Provides no support towards notability of this subject.
 * 17) Subject not mentioned. Source is independent and reliable. Provides no support towards notability of this subject.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Later added ref, now at:
 * 1) Brag was published by Furst Media. Article posted on 13 June 2016, which is about six months before the public announcement of the subject's company acquisition of Furst Media. Alexa search is only for issuu.com here, not on Furst Media nor on Brag. Australian rating not available. Article's page number not given, I haven't been able to find the specific article cited and so the content has not been checked.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)12:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Shaidar cuebiyar. On Brag. The content is on page 10. It's one of those short snippets on industry comings and going that you get in those street press mags. "Shock Records A&R/label director Luke Girgis has left the business ..." ~80 words. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. After reading the passage, I see that it does verify the content indicated but this is not substantial coverage of the subject. The ref can be used in Coptic Soldier to verify such a claim there. It does not support independent notability, here.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. I can't find anything I would consider substantial coverage. Doctorhawkes (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * delete fails WP:BIO. the analysis of sources by the nominator reveals this. In my several years participating in AfDs, extremely long winded arguments for keep are a dead give away of a conflict of interest. LibStar (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete This could have been nominated for speedy deletion as a blatant advertisement for Mr Girgis. The article is written in a promotional tone, and the references do not establish notability. Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2017 (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.