Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theo Obrastoff


 * 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. - "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" anyone? Mr.  Z- man  20:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Theo Obrastoff

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable musician. 101 gHits using ""Theo Obrastoff" -wikipedia -blog". No entry on Allmusic. Supplied references somewhat dodgy with regard to WP:RS and independence. List of albums that seem to be privately published (being sold on CDBaby etc). -- WebHamste r  02:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't see the point in deleting. He's played major music festivals, been interviewed and reviewed in the music media, published books and appeared on CDs released by major indie labels. Certainly as much credibility as half of the other musicians on Wikipedia. Audiori 19:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That isn't what the sources, Allmusic or Google reports. Perhaps if you add those details it would make a difference?  WebHamste r  18:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * AllMusic gets a lot of stuff wrong, believe it or not. They also leave a lot of things out. With most things, I assume they'll get to it eventually. There are things like Mark Heard's Mystery Mind collection which came out back in 98 or something.. it still isn't listed on AllMusic guide in spite of the fact that it was released by the same label that released Heard's last three albums (which are all on AllMusic.) They're also extremely slow about updating pages... I could submit these CDs to them today and not see them added for three years. I've submitted several CDs to AllMusic guide over the years that have not yet shown up.. some of the ones that have, are listed incorrectly. A band like Daniel Amos is actually listed as two different bands... Daniel Amos and Daniel Amos (DA) in spite of being the same band. This also splits their discography in half for no apparent reason. On one CD, the lead singer is listed as Terry Earl Taylor instead of Terry Scott Taylor. Steve Taylor is listed as the composer of the Swirling Eddies song "I've Got An Idea" when in fact it was Terry Taylor. Just a few examples of fairly big errors... I've submitted corrections to them on quite a few different occasions over the last few years and have only seen a couple of those corrections eventually show up (to date). Again, I assume they'll get to them eventually. They're probably really understaffed.


 * Why do I know this? Because I work on the edges of the music business and have seen it over and over again. Interestingly enough, my connection to the music business is also why I know who Theo Obrastoff is. I've seen him peform at Cornerstone and other venues and have the two main CDs sitting on my CD shelf. I even sat through a press conference that he gave at Cstone. Audiori 01:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems silly to me. Vote no for deletion. Solkaige 18:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As author that's hardly surprising. What is surprising is that you haven't declared as such?  WebHamste r  18:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 13:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep a simple google search show more then enough notability. Really you don't even need to look the first page is all good results. Ridernyc 14:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - a simple Google search turned up 194 hits on his name, and none in what I'd refer to as notable, non-trivial reliable sources; two hits in Google News Archive were passing mentions, as were many of the regular hits. He runs the record label, apparently, so any records are self-published. Without coverage in reliable sources, verifiable proof that he's toured extensively, etc., he doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Some of those CDs are sitting on my CD shelf. Most of the artists that participated in the various artists collections are big names. Audiori 03:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Simply appearing on, or releasing albums doesn't create notability. Googling his name gives less than 70 hits, and none of them are enough to show notability. Just saying "keep - notable" isn't enough. Add sources to the article, if they exist. Crazysuit 04:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I get 200 and guess what it doesn't matter how many he gets because unlike most artists, 4 on the front page alone are notable enough to keep him here.  It's not like othere artists where you get 8 my space hits 1000 hits on lyrics sites.  If someone only has 10 hits all of them from the cover of the NYT are you going to discount those. Ridernyc 05:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd be curious to know what these articles are you're finding that meet WP:RS; I didn't see any. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I declare myself the articles author if that matters. It seems like some are using stricter guidelines of what is considered "notable" for this article than they do with a hundred other musical artists on Wikipedia. Why not keep it? Are we running out of server space? Do we have to seriously cut back on how much information we're putting up? Aren't a couple of CDs released and sold worldwide worthy of a page? Solkaige 23:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as original nominator. These days anyone with a computer can release a CD and sell it worldwide, therefore it's not an automatic decree of notability. As for "other stuff exists" well yes it does and it is totally immaterial to this discussion. You have had ages to produce sources that meet WP:RS yet you still haven't done so. Do they exist? As for the diskspace argument, how about a response of "precedence"? If we don't stick to the rules any teenager with a guitar and a copy of iGarage will be wanting an article too. This is an encyclopaedia, it's not a musician's promotion agency, therefore some semblance of notability should be established hence WP:MUSIC and WP:RS. As I noted in my original nomination this guy has minimal net presence, and what there is isn't independent, non-trivial or substantial. All of which are required regardless of how much free space is available on the server's drives.  WebHamste r  23:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Precedence is exactly what I'm talking about. The precedence is that artists with much less notability are still here. My comment about disk space was just sarcasm, but my point is simply this - is it the goal to add more information to Wikipedia? Or limit it in some way? Of course I agree that it shouldn't be just any kid with a guitar, but are you suggesting that that is what this person is? How many kids with guitars release CDs that are sold worldwide on semi-major indie labels? How many kids with guitars get interviewed in magazines and perform at major music festivals like Cornerstone? Solkaige 04:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The precedence of foregoing the accepted standards is one to avoid rather than encourage I would have thought. Yes there are bands on WP that shouldn't be there. Sooner or later they will be noticed and deleted, but that is not a reason to allow one more. Quite simply this article does not meet the requirements of WP:MUSIC, it does not meet the requirements of WP:RS and for that it should not exist on WP. It's a simple notion. For it to stay all you have to do is meet those requirements. What I don't understand is that you prefer to spend time arguing/discussing rather than make the article conform to accepted guidelines. I can only assume that you can't otherwise you, or someone else, would have by now. Incidentally, what is a "semi-major indie label"? It's either major or it isn't. If it's "Andy's Angels' Records" then that isn't close to being a major indie label. It's a label he created to sell his own catalogue. Let's face it any label that has to sell its material on CDBaby is hardly in the "major" category, "semi" or otherwise. I work for several indie labels, I know exactly how it works. One of the labels I work for is miniscule yet you can still buy their recordings on Amazon. Try putting "Theo Obrastoff" into an Amazon.com search and see what comes up... nada.  WebHamste r  12:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is generally something to avoid in these discussions. What we need are reliable sources that verify what you're claiming. Thus far, we haven't really seen any that fit the requirements. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Missing my point entirely. When you say "we haven't really seen any that fit the requirements" - what you mean is that YOU haven't seen any that fir YOUR requirements. There does seem to be quite a bit of varying opinion about that. So far, its 50/50 how many people think that the sources are reliable and how many don't. The Phantom Tollbooth, to mention one of the used sources, is a music magazine that is well respected and has been around for years. Pretty much everyone I know reads it. Solkaige 23:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And you seem to be missing the point that "YOU" and "YOUR" doesn't come into it, but WP:RS certainly does. Just because you and your mates read it doesn't mean anything. YouTube and MySpace are read by an awful lot of people too and they most certainly aren't reliable sources. The fact is that Phantom Tollbooth is not necessarily totally independent, and like a lot of mags of it's ilk use press releases and/or submitted CDs to create reviews, i.e. we don't know how the CD review came about (and note, the review is about the CD, not about Obrastoff himself). For this reason there aren't many of them that are deemed to be reliable and/or independent.


 * Of the 4 references you cited 2 are from Obrastoff's own blog, 1 is from Daniel Amos' website and one is from an interview with and about Terry Scott Taylor. The first 2 are from a blog so that's a no-no, more than that they're from the subject's own blog so that's a double no-no. and the others aren't about Obrastoff, he just comes up in passing, and in any case they aren't independent as the person who brought up Obrastoff is the person involved in the project.


 * Anyway, if you don't believe us you could always try asking at WP:RSN for their opinion of the sources you feel are adequate. In any case, if this guy is as notable as you say there should be no end of sources that exceed WP:RS requirements, so how come you haven't been able to come up with any? Like I say, it's rather telling when he doesn't show up in Amazon, or AllMusic and very little by way of Google hits. WebHamste r  00:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My "mates?" Are you joking? I don't know these people. As one of them pointed out above, AllMusic would only add it if it was submitted. And even if they add it, it might be years before its added. What is added is full of errors in a lot of cases. Amazon only lists what it sells and when it comes to independent music it doesn't seel everything. One of the other "keep" voters said there were a bunch of search hits just looking at the first page alone. Assuming that I know everyone that voted to keep it along with everything else - it seems like you have an axe to grind and I'm not sure anything will ever be good enough for you. Solkaige 00:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I might also ask... whats wrong with using Daniel Amos' website and an interview with Taylor as a source? Thats a band with a buttload of google hits, AllMusic pages and CDs on Amazon. Certainly enough notability for you.. Solkaige 00:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Allmusic has it's own sources and not all, not even most, are user submitted. For example, one of the bands I work for has an entry on there and none of us submitted it. Like any large database it will, of course have some errors, they all do, but the total omission of someone you are trying to say is notable is a factor whether you like it or not. Fo course Amazon only lists what it sells, that's the point, it isn't selling any of Obrastoff's music. Amazon lists an awful lot of indie music. Again the point being that if Theo (I'm getting sick of typing Obrastoff, why can't his name be Smith!) runs a "semi-major independent label" then one would have thought that Amazon would be listing it, e.g. all of the music of the small indie labels I work for is available on Amazon, and one of the labels only consists of one band, i.e. not even a hemi-demi-semi-major indie label. So basically what you are saying that Theo is notable it's just that he's inept at running a record label?


 * Daniel Amos' website is not an independent source per WP:RS, and the interview with Taylor is just that, it's about Taylor, it's not about TO, he's mentioned in passing by Taylor with regard to a project he's involved with, again, it's not independent. No-one is saying that TO doesn't exist, or that he doesn't run his own label or that his son wasn't the reason he does a lot of things. The references you've given tell us that, what they don't tell us is how notable TO is because the sources themselves don't meet the the requirements of WP:RS. I'm not sure how many times I can repeat or explain the same thing as you don't appear to be getting the logic behind it.


 * As regards me having an axe to grind. No I don't, why should I? What I am though, is the nominator, and it's incumbent upon me to prove my case. This is what I'm trying to do.  WebHamste r  01:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I get the logic behind your opinion. Do you get the logic behind the equal number of voters that disagree with you? Its condescending to assume that someone that has a different view "doesn't get it." So far, its still 50/50.

First, I wasn't the one that used the phrase "semi-major indei label." At least pay attention to who you are responding to. I wouldn't say that Obrastoff's label is a semi-major indie label. Its actually pretty small. The comment you're referring to however said that he's had albums released on a semi-major indie label. And that is true. It wasn't his label, it was someone elses. Solkaige 01:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Condescension has nothing to do with it. I'm afraid you need to read up on AFD procedures. This isn't a vote. It never was. It's a debate whereby opinions are put forward to aid the deciding Administrator in how to deal with the nominator's request for deletion. It's not necessarily about numbers, it's about having a strong argument. My opinion of you not getting it is with regard to WP procedures and guidelines, not on how many people say yay or nay. A couple of us have tried to explain to you about how WP:RS works but because it doesn't work in your favour you refuse to accept that, preferring to think that we/I "have an axe to grind".


 * And yes you did use the expression "semi-major indie label"... "How many kids with guitars release CDs that are sold worldwide on semi-major indie labels?", it appears that it isn't I who's not paying attention, and I'm not the one who wrote it. So your statement saying you wouldn't use it is specious, you did use it. So the still unanswered question remains, where are the references/citations that meet WP:RS?  WebHamste r  01:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I said I wouldn't say that Obrastoff's label is a semi-major indie label. What your quoting is not saying that either. That quote is saying that he has been on CDs released worldwide on semi-major indie labels. That is true.


 * I understand that you don't think I'm getting the WP procedures and guidelines. My point is that so far, its 50/50... half of which seem to think YOU'RE not getting it. 50% seem to think you are the one with the weak argument. 50% of us have tried to explain it to you and since it doesn't work in your favor you refuse to accept that - even suggesting that they're all my buddies when I don't know them from Adam. Solkaige 17:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact of the matter is that you insisted that you didn't use the expression when it's quite clear you did. I haven't commented on how you used it, just on the fact that you did.


 * Has it occurred to you that 'your 50%' is wrong? Like it or not for matters relating to musicians Allmusic is generally considered to be a reliable source regardless of its limitations. Like it or not gHits (at the extremes) are used as an indicator of possible notability. Like it or not musicians making comments about projects they are involved in are not considered to be reliable sources as they are not independent. Like it or not trivial or passing references are not considered to be reliable sources. CDs on someone's shelf is not considered to be a reliable source. An artist's own blog (or 99.9% of blogs for that matter) is not considered to be a reliable source. So if 'my' 50% is wrong would you be so good as to point out where? The fact of the matter is that regardless of whether TO is notable or not the article doesn't demonstrate that he is. You, and others, have had plenty of time to come up with WP:RS references but yet you haven't, instead you choose to argue about interpretation of policy. To me that says you don't have the required references/sources and are merely playing for time. Though I have no idea why, unless it's an attempt to increase the aforementioned gHits?  WebHamste r  11:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable preacher group. Mbisanz 05:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Very very weak keep. There is some evidence, from note 2, that he's toured Nationally, but only to open for another band.  Even Christian Contemporary musicians have some press, and he appears to have none.  Could use better sourcing per WP:BLP, fewer quotes.  Stubify? Bearian 17:52, 31 October 2007 (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.