Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Jeays


 * 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. – bradv  🍁  15:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Philip Jeays

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:MUSICBIO.  scope_creep Talk  16:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm a big fan of Philip Jeays, but he is rather 'under the radar'. There is some coverage around, e.g., , . --Michig (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * He has a quite a few albums out.   scope_creep Talk  20:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Tagged for notability for a decade? Mr J's website cites some reviews from pretty mainstream media, but all unlinked from the '90s, before the modern era and all that. There's nothing much beyond the local papers quoted above, (very local coverage) to meet WP:GNG out there now. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yip, nobody is listening to his music, no social media either, no streaming.   scope_creep Talk  09:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep as well as the sources identified in this discussion he also has a staff written bio at AllMusic here as well as five staff written album reviews linked in the AllMusic discography. Consideration should be given to the factor of his age being almost 60 and his genre of music (French chansesuse) being completely out of fashion so WP:Notability is not temporary applies imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Reviews are great in principle, but nobody is listening to his music. Nobody. He has 67 monthly listeners on Youtube and no presence on social media. Nobody. He has no fans, no plays, no streams, no social media.   scope_creep Talk  09:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's rubbish. He's sold plenty of albums and I've watched a couple of recent live streams along with 100s of other people. He's not big on self-promotion, but he does have a significant number of fans. I'm not saying he's notable by WP standards, but please stop making such ridiculous statements. --Michig (talk) 10:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Self promotion has nothing to do with it. You sound like a fan who is naturlly biased. Spotify is the biggest in the west and its figures are so accurate that industry uses then. But its just not there, look at Amazon Music, Soundcloud, Apple Music and so on. Nobody is listening to him. And when you look at Youtube, his bigest watched video is 1000 plays. His latest video had 24 people watching it. Where is the coverage. There is nothing there either. If he was really big e.g. 10 years ago, there would be coverage, and there isn't.      scope_creep Talk  11:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've already stated that I'm a fan, but I am remaining objective, unlike you who is stating that a video of his has had 1000 plays while at the same time stating "nobody is listening to him" and that he has "no fans". Please stick to accepted notability criteria and stop exaggerating. --Michig (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - Nothing presented above, nor my own due diligence, shows that the subject meets WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - As well as the rationales presented above, the article as it now stands is an unsourced BLP, so could be deleted per WP:BLPDELETE. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. It has been my long-standing contention that editors who want to fix and rescue an article per WP:HEY have to do the actual, literally, hard work of fixing the article, not just figuratively waving their fingers around on a keyboard. I've rescue over 100 articles this way, so I have no sympathy. Bearian (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - On his own website he says "I just think my energies are directed more into being creative than being famous". And that's a perfectly valid way to be an artist; it's how most people do it, it simply won't warrant an article here. As with the others above, I cannot find any significant coverage of him or his work, at all, anywhere. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - well now, I'm going to argue against a number of editors whose opinions I greatly respect, but the Allmusic staff bio + Goldmine review + Petersfield Post = multiple reliable independent sources with coverage significantly surpassing passing mentions. I don't think The Argus is independent enough, being short and mostly consisting of interview.  I found a very small review in The Tennesseean at newspapers.com, which isn't very significant but does show geographic scope.  This is modified to "weak" because I Ritchie333 makes a point regarding BLPDELETE, and per Bearian I'm well, working on other stuff.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 14:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it wasn't I that you were referring to, but to me the Allmusic and Petersfield sources didn't feel especially robust, especially considering that Allmusic as an archival resource has much lower standards for inclusion than Wikipedia. With what few sources have been positively identified, to me it feels like the primary issue is that what we have doesn't quite scrape past criteria 1 for WP:MUSICBIO. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course Allmusic has lower standards for inclusion, it's a music review site, not an encyclopedia. A staff writer at Allmusic can write about anyone he finds interest in.  Now, if enough reliable sources find interest in this person, we call it meeting GNG, which is essentially what NMUSIC#1 is.  By the way, Allmusic is the online version of print media, at least the staff written parts of it.  In this instance, the staff writer is Dave Thompson (author), who is significant enough of a writer to have his own article here.  So lets look at NMUSIC #1.  Are the three sources I mention "multiple".  Yes.  Are they non-trivial.  Yes.  Are they reliable?  Yes.  Are they not self-published?  Yes.  Are they independent of the subject?  Yes.  Therefore MUSICBIO #1 is met.  GNG is accordingly met.  The topic deserves an article according to our notability guidelines.  The question is, does this topic deserve this article, and there is cogent reasoning as to why not, as I explained above, hence the "weak" keep.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 03:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. In addition to the sources already mentioned, my university library search turned up the following non trivial reviews from the Edinburgh International Festival during the 1990s:









These sources, along with those mentioned above, show sustained non-trivial coverage over a considerable time period. The Edinburg Festival is a major event, and he performed there multiple times.4meter4 (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Thanks to the editors who have found the coverage mentioned here, there is clearly enough to satisfy the notability guidelines. --Michig (talk) 07:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have now added these (and more) sources to the article. --Michig (talk) 10:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Given the current state of the article per 4meter4's findings, I'm willing to admit my mind's been changed. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2021 (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.