Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patty Walters


 * 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. The arguments given by the persons !voting "delete" are quite compelling and policy based. The !vote by I.Wont.Give.In, although keep, actually argues against notability, because it suggests that future coverage is needed to establish notability, implying a lack of notability at this point. Randykitty (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Patty Walters

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial secondary support. "References" consist of Primary sources and YouTube videos. red dogsix (talk) 03:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Regretfully delete, or at least cut back to a stub. The subject has one good interview, but the writer of this article has decided to pad it out with non-Notable and Original research. I wouldn't rule it out for the future, however. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - Walters is a notable individual, especially because of his work on YouTube. His work as a solo artist is sufficient in that his music YouTube channel has well over 25 million views and 459 thousand subscribers, which has made him featured as a solo artist in various magazines, including a recent an article about him in Popstar!, in addition to the many different articles which have been written about him alone; he was also featured on the cover of Rock Sound Magazine by himself representing As It Is with no other members of his band pictured. Also, the majority of the sources in the article are secondary sources, including web articles from reputable sources and three printed journal articles. A few sources are pages automatically created by YouTube which are used for statistical purposes only. Additionally, only a few of the sources on the article are self-published by Walters, each of which is considered acceptable under Wikipedia guidelines because they are related only to him and mention no outside parties. Additionally, two of the references from YouTube are interviews with Walters, both of which are considered reliable sources under Wikipedia guidelines.~Peter Dzubay (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2015
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: I agree it appears there is a desperate attempt to make this notable by piling on more websites that have mentioned this artist. Most that are in external links are really 'iffy' to be here. See WP:ELPEREN. (two for youtube, one facebook, one twitter, one instagram and even tumblr (!!)) We have 36 sources for a barely 'start class' article. That being said, there are some notable press sources. I am a fan of Kerrang. Keep article and trim. I dislike seeing a row of citation numbers after statements. One good one is better than four non-notable sources... Fylbecatulous talk 13:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait, --you mean this article from Kerrang? But that's one single paragraph with an announcement of the As It Is tour. It offers no in-depth discussion of anything; one could argue that it's nothing but a quote with a headline. In addition, if it adds to notability for anything, it would be for the band, not for our subject. Drmies (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Eh...--for now, delete. I'll say "keep" if I see three or four decent, reliable sources that discuss the subject in any kind of depth. I tried looking for good sources, but stuff like this (three paragraphs in an alternative paper), this (two paragraphs and a thousand videos in an online magazine), this (an interview on a blog), and this (another interview on a blog, where the writer managed to write no more than four or five short sentences) just don't cut it. The rest of the plethora of links are just that, links--primary, unreliable, silly. I mean, what is this supposed to add to the article? And what do the six External Links, all to our subject, signify but "fan page"? Drmies (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: Each source in the article is acceptable to cite for information, though a few may of them not add notability to Walters (but still provide valid information). Firstly, I'd like to point out that there are many sourced articles about Walters from online magazines and newspapers (such as Alternative Press and Kerrang, to name a few) in addition to three different printed journal articles (including articles in Rock Sound and Alternative Press) which are, with no doubt, reputable and acceptable. Each of the few social media sources in the article, though they are not preferred, are considered valid sources per WP:SELFSOURCE, and are used only for things such as his full name, birth date, and quotations. Each interview is an acceptable source per WP:Interviews. Also, the external links simply serve as links to Walters' social media because he has no official website. ~Peter Dzubay (talk) 4:01, 22 June 2015
 * No it is not. I asked for a few sources; you provide nothing. What you're basically feeding us (in this AfD and the reader of the article) is "it's verified so it should be in here"--including fan chatter like his own announcements about his own work. That it's "his" article so it should get a quotebox with some of his famous dictums is nonsense as well. Mind you, what you did in this edit does not mean the article should be deleted--it just means you show no sense whatsoever of editorial discretion. And let's face it: we're talking about someone who makes videos on YouTube and isn't written up, let alone discussed in significant depth, in reliable sources--it's just chatter in ezines, as far as I can tell, and your downplaying of the amount of "social" and self-sourced content is nothing but fluffery. Whether this article stays or goes, it will be trimmed. Drmies (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There are many valid sources in the article. A few of these I mentioned above by publisher, which are very reputable and are good sources including three printed journal articles (Biddulph, Andy (May 2015). "Reviews". Rock Sound (199): 75., "On The Radar". Popstar! 16 (4): 90. July 2015., and Richman, Jesse (June 2015). "AP Recommends". Alternative Press 29 (323): 33.) and articles and interviews in reputable online sources (such as this, this and this); the "chatter in ezines" which you mention make up only a few of the sources and are articles which come from reputable publishers and contain the information which is being cited in the article. Also, OnRecordMag and TenEightyMag are valid news sources and not blogs, and other sources which you specifically mentioned, such as this, are legitimate and contain the information that they source in the article. I have taken your suggestions and removed the less reputable sources, sources less focused on Walters, and sources which were part of source lists after certain sentences. Also, to mention one of my edits and say that I "show no sense whatsoever of editorial discretion" is rather ridiculous considering that, first of all, in that edit I specifically explained why I did what I did while linking it to Wikipedia guidelines, and second of all, I only reworked two of the edits that had been made- I had not undone all of them. ~Peter Dzubay (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2015
 * Well, Wellz Street Journal is just another music blog, as is On Record. You are welcome to take this to WP:RSN and try to establish that we should accept these WordPress-generated blogs without clear editorial policies as reliable sources. The Alternative Press article you linked spends no more than half a sentence on our subject ("and Patty Walters will be doing vocals for the Sunrise Skater Kids songs"). So none of this adds up to notability. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Per Interviews, both of the interviews which you specifically mentioned are considered acceptable because of the articles' interviewee and subject; there is not any doubt that those interviews were legitimately with Walters. There are also other reliable interviews from which information is drawn such as this one with DSCVR. Also, whether or not articles such as the Alternative Press article that you mentioned go in-depth on Walters or not, the information in the Wikipedia article that is sourced with these is present in them; there is not a single claim made in Walters' article without a source that specifically supports it. In that example, the sentence in the article states that Walters is the vocalist of the satirical rock band Sunrise Skater Kids which that source specifically states. And, again, you are failing to acknowledge the journal articles that I've mentioned (Biddulph, Andy (May 2015). "Reviews". Rock Sound (199): 75., "On The Radar". Popstar! 16 (4): 90. July 2015., and Richman, Jesse (June 2015). "AP Recommends". Alternative Press 29 (323): 33.), some of the sources which establish notability. ~Peter Dzubay (talk)
 * This is an AfD. We're talking about notability here, not about whether something can be said to verify some statement or other. The three sources you just mentioned, as far as I can tell they're all about "As It Is" (AP, for instance, recommends As It Is, not Patty Walters), not about Patty Walters--and so this fails WP:BAND quite spectacularly (see the final note in that section). Drmies (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Walters is a notable individual; he has done a lot in addition to being the frontman of As It Is. Most significantly, he is a well-established solo artist because of his work on Youtube. Through YouTube, he has generated 25 million views, 460 thousand subscribers, several viral videos, and a large following as an individual. His work as a solo artist has been caused him to be featured in various articles about him alone (such as this one and this one, and the majority of "On The Radar". Popstar! 16 (4): 90. July 2015., which, while also about As It Is, is focused mostly on Walters' work on YouTube). Additionally outside of As It Is, he is the vocalist in Sunrise Skater Kids and has done things such as collaborating with The Vamps and other YouTube celebrities to raise funds for cancer treatments and co-hosting Transmitter. He does significant work outside of As It Is; he does not fail WP:BAND. Also, while the Rock Sound and Alternative Press articles, unlike the Popstar! article, are focused more on the band than Patty, they specifically discuss his solo work, and this discussion does, in fact, count towards his notability. ~Peter Dzubay (talk)
 * Well, I could believe this, maybe, if you could give me one of these articles that say this. We've already looked at these two short paragraphs in a zine and these three sentences in an alt paper. We just don't accept stuff like that as significant discussion in reliable (preferably printed) sources. Everything you've provided so far has been either a. unreliable and non-notable; b. incredibly brief and uninformative; c. not about him; or d. all of them at the same time. Not a single article about him in a print journal or magazine? Strange. Or not: since I have come to believe even more strongly that this guy is not notable. Someone please write up As It Is and give the singer's YouTube career three sentences. Drmies (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You keep referring back to the fact that those two references (out of many) are short which is irrelevant to this discussion; their length has nothing to do with the information that they serve to source in the article.
 * In response to your statements: a. There is not a single source in his article which is not accepted under Wikipedia guidelines; I have specifically explained why the ones which you mentioned above as unreliable are accepted. b. There are various sources which are in-depth, like the journal articles about Walters and his band, the online articles about Walters and his band, and the interviews, all of which are legitimate sources. Also whether or not an article is brief does not matter as long as it contains the information it is used as a reference for. c. The only article that was not directly related to him was about a band that he is a part of and has since been removed.
 * There are articles about him in the journals which I listed; they serve no less as points of notability because they also discuss a band which he is a part of. Additionally, Walters had a printed four page spread about him alone in Kerrang! issue 1564 (Hickie, James (15 April 2015). "Will the Real Patty Walters Please Speak Up?". Kerrang! (1564): 25.) which discusses his career and his life in-depth.
 * His YouTube career should not be compressed into "three sentences" and thrown into his band's article as you have suggested because it would be irrelevant; Walters' life outside of his band is just that: outside of his band. ~Peter Dzubay (talk)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 06:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: Due to the fact of his youtube popularity, rising notableness of his band, and valid sources we have of him I say keep for now. But if he drops of the face of the earth and only does his band and never returns to youtube then we might need to re-open this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I.Wont.Give.In (talk • contribs) 14:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2015 (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.