Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Neumark


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Tim Neumark

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails notability; no significant coverage in independent third-party reliable sources. Sources cited seem to be essentially blogs.  JN 466  10:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep the article because this is a notable musician. None of the sources are blogs, and they are all unrelated. How could they not be independent? Pianette7 (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, all the references are to self-published sources: http://neumarkmusic.com/about.html http://www.quiescencemusic.com/ http://www.piano-heaven.co.uk/ http://homepage.mac.com/kathyparsonspiano/timneumark/Personal837.html The following site is a commercial site, but it fails verification: http://payplay.fm/genre/solo+instrumental – there is no reference to Neumark on it. The artist's music, too, is self-published. His youtube channel has 125 views. In summary, there are no professionally published sources whatsoever, and no other evidence of notability. It's the piano equivalent of a garage band.
 * Looking at your edit history, a substantial number of your edits appear focused on Neumark and the music he likes.
 * Your first edits do not seem like those of a novice editor. Have you ever edited Wikipedia under another user name? -- JN 466  15:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not edited Wikipedia under other names. I am proficient at MediaWiki because we use it where I work. I don't think a "substantial" number of my edits are about this guy, I just went to two of his concerts and felt he deserved a page. I like good piano music and that is where my edits were focused. Based on WP:MUSICBIO which is discussed below, I think he passes #1. If you don't think those three interviews are valid then I guess he doesn't. Did he require an interview from the NY Times or something? You are correct that he is not on that payplay site now, but he was there for a long time. I don't understand the requirements for your sources if three interviews about a musician or band is not enough to pass your first rule there, then what is? I realize this guy is not David Lanz or Yanni, but he's not a garage band either. I do understand that he is not hugely famous, but I did not think fame is a requirement because there are lots of small bands or unknown artists on this website. If I misunderstood rule #1 there then I agree with deletion, but then Wikipedia needs to delete lots of small band articles or most of the List of New Age music artists, some of which I have edited. I added this page because I am a fan and I thought he needed a page. If Wikipedia now accepts only some references and not others, then how is an editor supposed to know what to add? That seems pretty biased to big media. This is the type of stuff that keeps honest editors from helping Wikipedia. Pianette7 (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. The sources that you cited are self-published sources -- they are websites established and run by private individuals, without editorial oversight. Such sources may not be used for biographies of living persons (see BLPSPS), nor do they demonstrate notability. Imagine: anyone can create three blogs under three different names and write about himself. Three friends could write about each other, etc. The presence of a handful of private websites or blogs referring to a band or musician does not establish "notability". This is so even if there is no relationship between any of the parties. See WP:MUSICBIO. You have made a number of edits about Tim Neumark that have been inappropriate; for example inserting him as a "famous Columbian" in the Columbia, Maryland article. If someone is genuinely famous, they will attract coverage in newspapers or books. There is absolutely no evidence of this here. -- JN 466  22:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns about people creating a bunch of fake blogs to gain notoriety for something, but this does not appear to be the case here. One of those websites is from the UK, and the Kathy Parsons website used to be a site with what you call "editorial oversight" when it was SoloPianoPublications.com. That site was removed and all reviews moved to her site. You can see that I made a revision with this new link in April 2008. Those websites are not fansites of this artist so it seems you are using the letter of your rules and not the spirit of them. I have read MUSICBIO as you suggested, and I thought he passed #1. This debate is solely based on the interpretation of those websites and rule #1. I think Tim is famous because I have been to his concerts and there are websites in other countries that have interviews about him. He is in one book from http://www.musicandspirituality.com/ but it is just a quote from him about music so maybe that doesn't count. I don't know anyone who uses newspapers now so that seems like a pretty dinosaur method of judging someone. I am really flummoxed that an article that is three years old would be deleted. If someone had given me these reasons immediately I probably would have understood but since you are doing this now it seems rather odd. Did you not nominate this earlier because it had references from SoloPianoPublications? What is the point of deleting this type of article, and do you do it for all small bands and artists? Your site is filled with hundreds of them. Go ahead and delete if you must, but you had better get rid of all the other ones like it. Pianette7 (talk) 13:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for the person who made the nomination, but I guess that the most likely reason they didn't nominate this for deletion earlier is that they didn't notice it. No, we don't delete articles on "all small bands and artists", but we do on those without evidence of notability. You are absolutely right in saying that there are hundreds of similar articles in Wikipedia, and that they should be deleted. Perhaps you would like to help by nominating some of them for deletion. However, the existence of those articles which should be deleted is not a reason for not deleting this one. 80.168.174.190 (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry I do not have time or desire to spend my time on Wikipedia. Pianette7 (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: No real WP:RS. Seems to be vanity article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, level of success does not yet seem to be enough to meet WP:MUSICBIO. It has been suggested that this is a vanity article by User:Timneu22 via a sock, which would not help it much either. Daniel Case (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not appear to pass WP:MUSICBIO due to self-published references. Perhaps it could be recreated if the subject receives more substantial press. Kaldari (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. None of the sources cited seems to be independent. Promotional in tone. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand deletion from the sources not meeting your standards, but I was sure to write this in a non promotional tone. Pianette7 (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I am seeing no evidacen of notability here.Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2011 (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.