Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Connan (2nd nomination)


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Tom Connan
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Person does not appear to meet WP:BASIC in having significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. The existing sources do not appear to be reliable, and the more detailed sources appear to be press releases or very much based on them. Previous AfD was inconclusive due to lack of scrutiny and involvement Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: A Story of Negation is a yet-to-be-released film by this person and is also nominated for deletion due to similar notability concerns. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 19.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 21:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep It does not seem relevant to question the notability of Connan again since there is now much more evidence of that notability. The page mentions lots of references from various resources (not only press releases but also blog articles, DJ playlists, interviews and so on). Furthermore, there had been a real debate about this when the page was created. Justinlived (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC) — Justinlived (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Sorry, but press releases and blog postings and listings DO NOT establish notability. Coverage in multiple reliable sources do. So you might study WP:RS to better understand just how Wikipedia determines the worth of a site. Thanks.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 02:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Only self-published blogs are not usable. On the contrary, and according to WP standards, some may be acceptable as sources "so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write". Anyway, I see several reliable sources which are not "blogs" nor press releases. There is a difference between a "press release" and a "news article". Justinlived (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a press release. This republishes the press release. What sources appear reliable to you? Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This republishes the "Chorus and Verse" source mentioned below.Justinlived (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Several reliable sources which establish a certain notability, especially in the music industry. The fact that it appears to be an "avant-garde" artist and not yet mainstream does not make it non-notable. For what seems to be a young artist, it sounds fair enough. We need to be careful: Wikipedia is not (only) a mainstream encyclopedia. Josephduvignere (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC) — Josephduvignere (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Actually you are incorrect. Please read WP:RS to better understand how Wikipedia determines the reliability of sources.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 02:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sources are reliable in regards of (i) the piece of work itself, (ii) the creator of the work and (iii) the publisher of the work. Also, secondary sources are preferred. Here, we have lots of primary sources but we also have several secondary sources from music websites mainly. Again, we have to make a difference between "mainstream" music media (Billboard, etc.) and "avant-garde" or smaller media in that field. In the field of electronic dance music, which is concerned with Connan, there are several levels of media, which doesn't mean only one type should be considered. We have 3 or 4 reliable secondary sources here (which only concern the musical aspect however). Josephduvignere (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please identify these 3-4 sources. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is an article about his first single from an electronic dance music media, here is an article about the "lyric video" of his second single from another EDM media, and here we have an interview with a music journalist. Also, we have here a mention of a specific remix, and there about what seems to be his last single (both Russian music sites). Maybe we should remove some unnecessary primary sources to avoid any further confusion. Josephduvignere (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The Chorus & Verse source provides significant coverage and might be considered reliable. Electro WOW is a blog that has the slogan "Electronic Music Promotion", and the other sources do not appear to be reliable or have significant coverage. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Electro Wow is "a music blog which started on May 1st, 2007. This blog is exclusively for DJs, clubbers or ravers who love Techno and House music", see here. Stitched Sound is "an online music magazine that brings you news about both upcoming and distinguished artists", see here. Not to mention several inclusions in DJ playlists, like here or there, which is an important aspect for an EDM artist. Josephduvignere (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:BASIC is failed.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 02:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. None of the links on the page are usable for notability purposes (as explained by Schmidt above) and a search did not bring anything that would show that Connan would otherwise pass notability guidelines. I know that it's difficult for non-mainstream artists to gain coverage, but that does not mean that they are exempt from the notability criteria. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Considering the person's main occupation as singer, the notability guideline WP:MUSICBIO can also be applied here, and Connan does not appear to meet any of this criteria. In addition, WP:BASIC says, "Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria," referencing WP:NOT. From this, WP:PROMO #4 (self-promotion) can apply, especially considering that both editors !voting to keep have only edited articles related to Connan and nowhere else. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, WP:EXTERNALREL says, "While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the encyclopaedia. When an external role or relationship undermines that primary role, or could reasonably be said to do so, that person has a conflict of interest... How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. For example, an article about a band should not be written by the band's manager, and a biography should not be written by the subject's spouse." Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I am concerned, I have no personal or professionnal relationship with Connan. I wonder why this argument is raised while several elements establishing a certain notability have been showed precisely. The only "reward" Wikipedia can give to its authors is the satisfaction that we can have from creating (or participating to the creation of) new content. I thought courtesy was also part of the Wikipedia guidelines... Josephduvignere (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Single-purpose accounts need to be aware of Conflict of interest. Such accounts' editing history can be pertinent to these discussions. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I also have to echo Schmidt's sentiments at the other AfD: this can be seen as sockpuppetry or WP:MEATPUPPETRY, which can be checked. Basically, it's a little suspicious that we have so many single purpose accounts coming here to vote "keep". If you were asked to come and vote on this AfD, you really, really need to state this somewhere for transparency's sake. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I was not "asked to come and vote". As you can see, I was one of the first persons to update the page regularly. I think it's my role to give my opinion for things that I have modified or added myself. Wikipedia is not the property of experienced users. I also have to say that being interested in someone's work doesn't constitute a conflict of interest. Josephduvignere (talk) 12:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. The question is: how many reliable secondary sources are needed? The mentioned guidelines seem pretty vague about this. If "several" means more than two or three, then this artist could be considered notable, even according to the specific music notability guidelines. The limit of this exercise is human interpretation which appears to be pretty subjective at some point. Nevertheless, the whole article should be rewritten as the actual version mixes potentially reliable sources with unreliable ones.Johnmeyerohio (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC) — Johnmeyerohio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The article does not mix unreliable sources with reliables ones, it just uses primary sources along with secondary sources. It would not make sense to mention several secondary sources without any reference to primary ones. Thank you. Justinlived (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but it does not seem relevant to mention several references with the same content -especially in regards of press releases.Johnmeyerohio (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete a WP:PROMO advert of an artist without any claim of notability, non-charting songs, unreleased film, refbombed with blogs and other unreliable and primary sources Kraxler (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - While this artist may have success in the future, he seems to be only barely notable at the moment. The kind of material cited in the article right now really are far from the sort of sources that we want. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 26 August 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.