Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Barber (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   delete. ‑Scottywong | converse _ 17:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Michael Barber (musician)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Just like other articles on subjects associated with Hoopla Worldwide (Jonathan Hay (publicist), Sabrina (pop singer), Audio Stepchild, Birdgang clothing) this article is a ridiculously bloated mess. It's made up of promotion, puffery, deception, bad sources and attempts to assert notablity by association. Good Luck to anyone trying to find their way through this mess. This piece has a huge mass of sources but most are not reliable sources. A mix of sources associated with Barber, blogs, press releases, sources that don't mention Barber, passing mentions, associated topics. The only souurce of any worth appears to be this little local interest piece. His band, Audio Stepchild, is not notable. His releases fall short of WP:BAND. His invented genre is not notable. Nothing here makes him notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

75% of the sources are valid. duffbeerforme has a personal vendetta against anything related to Hoopla Worldwide. He has completely slandered, and been completely disruptive to anything related. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TinyDancer1489 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: has been indef'd as a sockpuppet - The Bushranger One ping only 07:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Could be, but the previous argument is not any stronger than the nomination's. Unscintillating (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * [entry redacted]
 * To the nominator's credit, just about every other article the article creator had made, was promotional garbage featuring tons of bombardment with bogus sources. There are plenty of terrible sources here too (Top 5 Lists, LastFM, etc.) so I can see how he thought this once could be deletable as well. Sergecross73   msg me   00:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm removing my !vote as it has been followed by a comment about an editor. I'm more interested in talking about contributions, than contributors.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. I sampled five of the so-called "references" and none were valid -- ads, press releases, junk. Looks like a case of WP:BOMBARDing articles.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Could be, but you don't have any evidence as to whether or not the topic is notable. Unscintillating (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What is disturbing is the overall pattern of launching promotional puffpiece articles, deliberately bombarding them with spam references for the purpose of boosting search engine optimization misusing Wikipedia as a sales platform. It is possible this artist is legitimate, but it is a lot of work for the rest of the community to have to cut all the chaff here, to police it for junk, to watch over it, and to deal with the hassles of unruly contributors. If somebody knowledgeable about Wikipedia, such as Unscintillating, will improve the article to make it passable, and then if an admin would block further junk being added, then I might change my vote. Until then, junk like this is a nuisance for the entire community.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. Duffbeerforme is spot on when he says "Good Luck to anyone trying to find their way through this mess." If I have time, I will go through the article and rip out absolutely everything that is questionably sourced, and replace it with better sources if they exist. It certainly doesn't help that's there's a more notable namesake who gets quite a few news hits. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   10:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Great. It might be easier to simply begin again from scratch -- chucking the whole thing; I have found rewriting, rechecking each bogus source, to be very time intensive. If you trim this article or rewrite it, I'll probably change my vote; wondering if after you fix it up, could the article be padlocked somehow otherwise my guess is the junk will re-accumulate with addition from socks or who knows where.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete I sat down to pick out the sources with the intention of rewriting it ... and then gave up. Unless I'm mistaken, every single source was either an unreliable source, a press release or simply didn't mention him. (Example here) A news search for "Michael Barber" brought up nothing relevant to this person, and the best I could manage on a web search was this, and I can't see anywhere on Jamsphere that gives me any confidence that they have a strict and well defined standard of editorial control. Even if that was a reliable source, there's no point me rewriting the article based on it as one source does not a notable subject make. If anyone else is thinking of !voting keep, I'm prepared to go through and summarise the problems with each source, but it would be too long and boring for everyone else and we'd all fall asleep. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   13:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey thank you for doing this; your experience is instructive. I've worked on borderline notability subjects before, and have saved a few articles, sometimes didn't, trimming and culling so only the best material remained, and I had thought that possibly this subject might be possible for such an approach. I used vast search strings as filters to pick out only acceptable possible references; that way, I could rather quickly peruse any topic, and whip together a quality piece for Wikipedia rather quickly. But in this instance, with the rudeness of the Hoopla spammer(s), their persistence and unwillingness to listen, I find myself unmotivated me to even consider helping out.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Yet another case of WP:BOMBARD from a user who was not here to help build an an encyclopedia.. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Another one of the user's promotional pages, tons of "bombardment" without any relevant sources. Sergecross73   msg me   02:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:RS - this makes extravagant, wild claims, such as having invented a notable genre of music. This violates the commonly accepted rule at Claims require specific evidence and the adage "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." Bearian (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2013 (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.