Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Christian


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Stephen Christian

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

My redirect to the band (Anberlin) was reverted by, "Notability is established". I beg to differ. The article is a veritable fan piece ("...is known for his powerful, elegant vocal style and wide vocal range") without a single reliable source--I mean, look at the sourcing, it's pathetic, and to list them here is almost an embarrassment. A quick Google search gives nothing else, at least nothing I found that discusses him in a reliable source outside of his band, as is required by WP:BAND, final paragraph--I come to AfD to request community consensus to uphold that guidelines and endorse a redirect. Drmies (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:GNG that needs to be cleaned up. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Walter Görlitz, please cite a single reliable source that discusses him in any significant way outside of the band. "Cleanup" here would require the removal of everything, since there are no reliable sources. Do you really think chatter.myyearbook.com is an acceptable source for a BLP? DYK that there isn't a single live link among that crap in the reference section? Drmies (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * When I checked them, they discussed him. They're all dead links now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but was chatter.myyearbook.com at that time a reliable source? Drmies (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not every source in an article needs to be reliable, just useful and with an author who can be identified. Earflaps (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Redirecting would be absurd, as the subject has his own notable side project and is the frontman of a notable band. His notability is independent of either project. Earflaps (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I cleaned it up, transferred references from some related pages. He also founded a record label and wrote a book...not quite sure how you missed all that Drmies, since it was in the article to start 0_o. Earflaps (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * OMG I missed someone having written a book, and they even published it online, by themselves? Stop the press. Seriously, I don't know if you know this, but anyone can publish a book these days through iUniverse, LuLu, etc--and that's what this person did. It's called self-publication. You can do the same with music; anyone can start a record label. Again, I point at the references, and Walter Görlitz, I'm still hoping you'll provide things that count as reliable sources. Dead or not, they need to be reliable., you said "Not every source in an article needs to be reliable, just useful and with an author who can be identified"--that's just incredibly wrong, in more ways than I can count, but I'll count three: yes, they do need to be reliable, no, they don't have to be "useful" (whatever that means), and no, they don't have to have an identifiable author. Really. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * He has a book, with a Wikipedia page. You're of course free to nominate that for deletion too, but you haven't done so yet, so I have no reason to assume you think it's not notable. And if everything on Wikipedia needed to be reliable, why are we always using Twitter for celebrity announcements, huh? (since twitter is being routinely 'hacked,' or so those same celebrities always claim after they say something stupid). Point is, some references are for fleshing out facts (PR releases can be great for boring info like dates), while others are great for proving notability in a deletion discussion. They don't need to do both at once. Earflaps (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it has a Wikipedia page, for now--it's already up for deletion. A self-published book which no one appears to have read. I don't know about you, but I never cite Twitter. You seem to be under some misapprehension: all sources that are cited need to be reliable. All of them. They don't all have to be the New York Times, but they need to be reliable--it's as simple as that. In this case, there are no reliable sources at all--just blogs, zines, whatnot. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Reliable" is always open to interpretation around here, and many many many essays have been written about the topic. My opinion? Commercial = "reliable" nowadays, which excludes social media entirely. I periodically use social media statements from artist accounts (which is perfectly allowed, I'll find you the wp:alphabet soup if you want it), but I don't consider those sources "reliable." Earflaps (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Btw, are you still arguing that no references on this page are reliable, or am I misinterpeting? You did look at it, right? Earflaps (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep asking me if I looked at something, read this or that, whatever? The only reliable source is this one, and it says nothing about the subject. The only other possibly reliable source is the article from the Sun-Sentinel, but it's dead, and so what it says and how it says it cannot be verified. So yes, I am still arguing that. Also, your opinion about what reliable sources are is irrelevant, and this jibber-jabber about essays is neither here nor there. Why you keep talking about artists' Twitter or social media accounts is unclear to me: the question here is whether something like Chatter.myyearbook.com is reliable. The answer is no. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Drmies Please read WP:SARCASM and DICK. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You can't address the actual issue? Drmies (talk) 05:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The additions I was hoping you would see were AbsolutePunk and ARTISTdirect. 24hour cool down, wanted to apologize for being catty yesterday - afd don't really bring out my best :/ [actually the reason usually just skulk around in graph land]. Did want to point out, Drmies, that while I still believe this nom rationale is absurd, I don't think you are absurd - I've seen your edits improve a lot of pages over at the amusement park project, and never seen you do anything not badass and spot on, excluding this one case. If I may...I noticed you redirect several band member pages at once (most deserved it), and this one may have slipped in as an oversight? We all do it, though food for thought - when I tend to make an oversight in an afd, people will just smack me in the face with a trout and move on. Your account, editors are quite likely to accept your opinion as a precedent, just on reputation; so if you do make a normal mistake, it may be less likely to correct itself. Earflaps (talk) 07:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:51, 15 November 2014 (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.