Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Mornay


 * 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. There appears to be sufficiently broad consensus to delete all three articles.  Go  Phightins  !  17:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Luke Mornay

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Devoid of any coverage that could satisfy WP:MUSICBIO or the GNG. Created by what appears to be an SPA. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 22:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 22:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 22:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 14:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I have also bundled the related articles based on comments in this AfD.

Hello, Please revisit the page. This page was created 7 years ago, as the subject had a major update on his site and socials and I had time to kill during lockdown I decided to update my previous contribution and from that point things went ballistic after few edits on my side. I've done a couple of other contributions on some other artists with profiles I thought could be updated or improved, I hope these won't get me into the eye of a storm either. So I'm asking you to please reconsider the deletion status or tell me what could be improved. thanks. Hvaillant (talk) 05:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC) — Hvaillant (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * delete he is only minorly involved with a notable song and there is no meaningful coverage. CUPIDICAE💕  12:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * CUPIDICAE💕 Don't know what you have against this guy but it seems personal, you want to practice censorship to quench your thirst of whatever, go ahead, delete, I found coverage and sources on many authority sources and association with major acts when completing his profile yesterday. Have you not checked my updates, I could eventually agree with you, but with my latest updates, it just looks like a diminishing and motivated unfair trial. Please advise. Hvaillant (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you feel so strongly, you can take it to WP:ANI. AFD isn't the place to hash out your ridiculous and unfounded paranoia. CUPIDICAE💕  14:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Why would I do that ? we're using some free time, wiki contributions shouldn't be a battlefield,if that would be the case, I'd better use my time on something else. can you at least check the update? I've used what I learned to improve some other profiles, can you tell me if what I'm doing is heading to the right direction. Thanks Hvaillant (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your "updates" added nothing of value - no meaningful sourcing and no fixing the tone. He still isn't notable.  CUPIDICAE💕  15:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * CUPIDICAE💕 ABC News, Billboard, IMDB, Variety and official charts not meaningful sources...alright I get it. You also went after another contribution of mine. Listen, I'm not here to get bullied with your unproductive and freely condescending comments.I've had other questions that you ignored to mash up an aggressive answer with a point to make the experience on this platform as unpleasant as possible. This conversation is over.Hvaillant (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Deletion Contested Bad faith arguments. Hvaillant (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually it is bad faith to accuse someone of bullying and censorship just because you disagree with them. This discussion is about the notability of Luke Mornay, and his placement in an encyclopedia where people must qualify for inclusion. This isn't about you. CUPIDICAE is discussing Wikipedia policies. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 16:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - This one is a close call because the gentleman does have some minor coverage in the genre press, and a robust album review: though it suffers from some suspicious puffery. Otherwise he is only ever mentioned in conjunction with other people when remixing their songs, and such articles are almost uniformly about them, not Mornay. The article really tries to stretch his "achievements" -- e.g. he is nowhere close to a Grammy nomination just because he remixed the Kylie Minogue song. There is not enough reliable media coverage that is specifically about him in order to qualify for the requirements at WP:NMUSICIAN.---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 16:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Expand my vote to Delete All - I originally voted before the album and discography articles were added to the AfD (see my comment below). I now recommend deleting those as well, for the same policy-related reasons that you may find buried within this bludgeoned discussion. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 14:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - If this article is deleted, similar action should be taken at Twenty Five Ten (Luke Mornay album) (another article dependent on sources that are about the people who got remixed, not Mornay or the album itself) and Luke Mornay discography (no sources at all). ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 16:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced newsoundsmag is actually RS or at least a source that provides any indication of notability, it appears to me to be more of a hobby review blog and not any of the major players that we'd expect for notable musicians. In fact, it only has 4 uses on Wikipedia, 2 of which are related to Mornay. CUPIDICAE💕  16:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, I did mention that review's suspicious puffery on how brilliant Mornay is. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 16:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * They do make quite a bold claim of 15,000 circulation, which seems unlikely given their lackluster social media engagement...but I suppose this AFD isn't the place for that. ;) CUPIDICAE💕  16:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I like the unfolding of this conversation as it raises a couple of fundamental questions way above this case. Do music collaborators have room to surface on wikipedia yes/no?. Knowing that on every major Artists, all articles will be about the main artist with little to no words about their creative teams. Regardless of the fact that they were hired by their industry for their ability to get notable results.

So, If I follow the logic exposed here, all articles that aren't exclusively about the creators, their references shouldn't be receivable or cited to sit their authority in their field.

And when articles are about them, regardless of the recognition by their own industry as they're obviously hiring those individuals for their skills, recognition through articles should systematically be qualified as biased and puffery. Well, I really feel sorry for these people, being cancelled and buried all across the board. If a precedent is set based on those rules then thousands of articles are in line for deletion.

Same goes for indie bands and non mainstream artists, obviously Wiki is not a fan page but sad such rules are preventing people to learn more about less exposed individuals.

Btw someone mentioned that the article in NS was about this guy remixes, not it isn't. There are only very few lines, the rest is about his album. For the discography,it's close to impossible to cite records without falling into sources issues. if I can't make it complete, best would be to delete, if this article doesn't get deleted altogether. Thanks Hvaillant (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete all - I agree with the case as laid out by . Does not meet the notability criteria.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 15:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * To improve my article I checked the guy’s website and googled sources, he’s been hired by the biggest labels from Capitol Records, to universal music group, Island records, Virgin, MCA, Sony, Parlophone, they’re not the kind to hire the clown next-door, he had gold certifications and #1 records, shout outs by world renowned artists, collaborations with big names in various fields, maybe you guys can feel comfortable with « whatever », personally I can’t. Cf. Discography, in countless other cases sources aren’t cited, so per example you could put up to deletion Dr. Luke’s discography too because it has no sources,Despite being 5x Grammy Awards nominee & 2x Ascap Winner.Though he has more citations for Rape allegations which are irrelevant from An authority standpoint, broken links in refs. And barely cited in articles even though in most cases he’s written & produced #1 songs for Shakira, J-Lo, Miley Cyrus, Rihanna, Britney Spears, Nicky Minaj, Pink etc…so based on what is criticized on my contribution, Mornay & Dr Luke should both get the deletion status , because criteria required are identically not met in both cases on this site, like some other hundreds producers & musicians I could submit for deletion for the very same reasons. Hvaillant (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as it fails WP:MUSICBIO. Kylie Minogue nomination is mostly about Minogue, not about Mornay remixing. We certainly have better argument if Mornay is the producer/songwriter of the album, but Mornay is not even credited on the album. The producer of the album in question (Richard Stannard) is not notable enough to get his own article, the one that have articles are his company Biffco. SunDawn (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * precision The previous statement is incorrect, Mornay's alias is credited on the album as engineer / producer, the US mix has his alias, Kylie Minogue's website mentioned that version as the one that got her, a Billboard #1 and later led to a grammy nomination, that's the version that she's been performing and the version that is known on the territory where she got nominated. Mornay was interviewed by Billboard Magazine in relation to that version. "Love At First Sight (Ruff & Jam US Radio Mix)" - Am still missing his personal information but I guess I gathered about anything that could be found. Hvaillant (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Stannard should be notable enough to have his own article, he's produced countless hits(like the spice girls first single), probably one I would do, but if it has to be the same hell as mornay here, I guess I'll pass heh.Hvaillant (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Love At First Sight (Ruff & Jam US Radio Mix), the one you are referring to, didn't have him as Producer or even Remixer, but as a Recorder and Mixer. While Kyle justly can be included on the Wiki based on this album, I don't think its recorder could be included.SunDawn (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Precision Billboard magazine : With its innovative and catchy remix of Kylie Minogue’s “Love at first sight” (Capitol) riding high on the Billboard dance charts, Belgian production unit Ruff & Jam has made a big step onto the international scene.“Stephen Bass, who is our UK Rep, was given Kylie’s a cappella version of “Love’s at first sight” by Parlophone” Mourinet Explains.“They must have liked how we worked the track because they decided to release our version as the U.S. Single.” Production Credits, Instrument credits, he's also listed in writing & arrangement, along for his work on The Killers, Sugababes and a couple of others, I also missed Scissors sisters in the remixes section (All top 10) based on his interview on Hitquarters Magazine. or even his gold certification for his 5 weeks at #1 on Belgium's version of Idols. I should charge this guy for advocating his case here. As you guys killed the fun, Next for me is to list music producers profiles for you to take action based on the arguments laid out here, make a copy of this conversation that I'll send to the Mornay and then I'll delete this profile myself. Can we agree on that ? Hvaillant (talk) 06:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * that's quite enough - you've contributed more than half the content to this AfD and your presence is now disruptive, you're bludgeoning the conversation and your continued edits prevent others from commenting when and where they would like. Your views will be taken into consideration, but you are one person and your comments will only be weighted as one person commenting. Nick (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Won't be needed to take any sort of consideration, I zeroed the pages and 'db-author''ed em. Hvaillant (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest you leave them be . They aren't eligible for G7 as this AFD has multiple editors discussing it. CUPIDICAE💕  16:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, I reverted what I've zero'ed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hvaillant (talk • contribs) 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.