Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Ward (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   keep. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Tyler Ward
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Fan page for a Youtube musician. Singularly fails WP:MUSIC - no albums, no singles, no label, no chart placing, no radio airplay. Brief appearance on a TV show, not the "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" required by WP:ENTERTAINER - every guest on Dr. Phil has more exposure than that. Only claim of notability is "lots of YouTube hits", which is not evidence of notability per WP:BIGNUMBER. WP:BIO's basic criteria "the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" is not met at all - there is not one review or journalistic article, just a salad of YouTube videos and booking pages - nothing that approaches WP:V or WP:BLP. The article has already been deleted 5 times, including by Articles for deletion/Tyler Ward, and was recreated without DRV. Given the 5 year campaign by fans to recreate this article, it should be WP:SALTed after deletion. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 11:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Tyler will be releasing an official original competitive album by the end of February 2013 Tyler Has been noted on many official sites in the past for his work and his exceptional covers and has been interviewed       He is not under a label as he is his own record label, with his own producing equipment and his own clients, I don’t believe needing to be under someone else’s record label should qualify as a means to have a Wikipedia page when many established artists have their own record labels and even sign people under that record label. Tyler has had an official placement in a chart listing which was in fact noted on the existing Wikipedia page  Tyler has appeared on Tv, more than once in fact, he has been showed with Christina Grimmie on The Ellen DeGeneres show , On tv news stations    Tyler has opened for many artists in the past including The Frey, Tickle Me Pink, The Jonas Brothers and even YouTube band Boyce Avenue , he also tours constantly with his band/crew, including his recent upcoming tour to promote his new upcoming album  Tyler has had significant radio air play which contributed to his placement in the Top 40 Chart  Tyler supports the Compassion international: support a child campaign   A log of other information about him and his crew, although written by a fan can be found here  Not only has Tyler separated himself from the traditional YouTube artist, he has also shown true compassion for music today, with how much work he puts into what he does... I think it’s truly disgusting and disrespectful that you would say that someone who has been featured on programs like DrPhil are more important. If what this man has done breaks what Wikipedia is about just because he is a YouTube artist then i think you should revise the guidelines for Wikipedia because YouTube IS in fact quickly becoming a more important media outlet then modern television whether you like it or not and give it time (like for quickly rising YouTube turned mainstream artists Conor Maynard) and Tyler Ward will have many notable and qualify-able facts for this Wikipedia page. Who is to say the amount of views and downloads of a video doesn’t mean the same as the amount of record sales simply because of the way it is distributed and performed and who is to say an interview from a independent blogging site or a YouTube based news channel is not the same as a huge and even corrupted news station's such as fox or Perez Hilton. Joetri10 (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The article is not a fan page, as I explain in the edit history. "no singles" - The article had a list of 39 singles written or co written by Tyler Ward before it was removed by a user. no chart placing - "Tyler Ward was once number five on Billboard's Top 100 Uncharted List and was also ranked on Billboard's Social 50 Chart for several weeks." (as stated and cited on the article.) The article was previously salted but then unsalted by an administrator when the administrator approved the article at AfC. -- Cheers,  Riley Huntley  talk  No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here.  19:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well as i said, give it half a year and he will most likely have an official single in the main charts if it makes you happy but as i said before, YouTube is stronger than ever, the amount of views he has gotten not being a mainstream artist is exceptional. Listing his achievements is not creating a fan page, it’s simply listing what he has done, just like if you were to list how many sales a singer gets of their song. I’m not sure why you feel it’s a fan page just because he is from Youtube. If you do delete it, at least don’t make it salted, because i do feel after February next year, what with this album, we will hear a lot more in the mainstream. Plus there was a lot more information about Ward and his band before someone decided to delete it because they didnt know who Tyler Ward actually is. Joetri10 (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per meeting WP:GNG and WP:MUSBIO #1. WP:MUSICBIO instructions are that at least one of the listed criteria be met.. and #1 is. It does not require that more than one, or that all of the great list shared by the nominator, need be. We also do not expect a singer who meets GNG and MUSICBIO also has meet the criteria set for actors. I never heard of Tyler Ward before tyoday, and whether or not the nominator actually reseached his deletion nomination, a very quick look finds international coverage for both his current music career and even his past sports career:
 * NBC News: February 15, 2010, "Tyler Ward Signs With Lehigh University"
 * The Connection, April 17, 2011: "YouTube helps aspiring stars launch their careers"
 * KDVR, November 30, 2011: "Colorado native burning up the music charts using social media"
 * GAFFA (Danish), December 12, 2011: "Tyler Ward kommer til Danmark "
 * Chester Chronicle, January 19 2012: "Tyler Ward to perform at Manchester Academy 3"
 * Billboard, February 18, 2011: "Traphik, Tyler Ward, Teen Hearts and More"
 * Billboard, March 1, 2011:, "Former football star-turned-songwriter Tyler Ward is slowly climbing the upper rungs of the chart, moving into the no. 5 slot this chart week"
 * La Primera Plana (Spanish), March 8, 2012: "10 mejores cantantes jóvenes de Youtube"
 * USA Today, March 21, 2011: "Country stars, YouTube acts double up for ACMs"
 * and several dozen more reliable sources speaking toward this singer in English and non-English.
 * When we have a verifiable and notable topic that so nicely meets both the intent and spirit of the GNG, we discuss and address perceived issues, not delete a notable topic per a possible animus or lack of actually looking. I was asked to look into this discussion, and had notability not been so obvious, I would have gladly opined a delete. Whatever the history of this article in the past, at THIS POINT IN TIME, notability criteria are met.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes GNG and WP:BAND. It could use more refs, such as the international ones listed above, but is easily above the bar. In order is a !vote for keep, and to salt: Articles for deletion/Tyler Ward (3rd nomination). Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

 DGG ( talk ) 07:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * May we come to some agreement now and add the list of information and source links to the page now, and the information including the fact that he is in a band (as many seem to deem it necessary to delete that information simply because of his name being the name of his band and/or because they don’t know who he is before this page was created. The page will need to be built over time for obvious reasons but good reasons nonetheless. I will not name others due to the fact that the YouTube haters will end up going to their pages too but i have found many other Youtube Artists with a Wikipedia pages in very good standard with the same type of information the page for Ward has. Joetri10 (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe wait until this AFD is closed? And to avoid and problems per WP:BLP, add back ONLY such information as can be cited to reliable sources AND include those proper citations. Also, avoid long lists of his works, as prose is the preference... and inlclude only those works that are themselves verifiable in reliable sources.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Uncertain/Examining the proposed references above in turn ,
 * 1) the first is a local station saying he went to Leigh as a freshman to play football.
 * 2) "aspiring" stars are people who aspire to become notable, not those who are notable.
 * 3) Another local article, saying he;s popular on YouTube which is not notability no matter how many people say it.
 * 4) Concert announcement
 * 5) Another concert announcement
 * 6) Billboard article that doesn't load.
 * 7) another Billboard article that doesn't load. The quote from it does not say he charted #5, but that he ranked #5 among the artists who did not chart.
 * 8) another article saying he's popular on youtube. No matter how many article say it, they're not saying he;s notable.


 * # That’s an article from NBC, what else do you want?, Just because he didn’t continue his career you say its irrelevant?
 * 1) The term "Aspire" can be used to notable people as well, you can never stop aspiring to be something.
 * 2) That is your own opinion on YouTube, you don’t get many singers that hit that many views and in fact he has gotten more views then that of signed artists, they who also have a Wikipedia page...
 * 3) A concert is still a concert and he sells out and gets in the news for it, he is at high demand due to his talent and performances, i provided a link for that information once but it got ignored as Original research.
 * 4) Maybe if the link was pasted correctly it wouldn’t have an error - for reference.
 * 5) It says he debuted at #7, that’s good enough. The same article also features Timothy DeLaGhetto which wouldn’t you know it, has a Wiki page of his own!. (In before you go and destroy it)
 * 6) He is 28th most subbed singer on YouTube, do you actually realise just how amazing that is for someone, he's even above a lot of Vevo channels!. Joetri10 (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @ DGG: You were the one who helped to teach me that ANY information included in a BLP had to be sourcable... even if it is a minor fact about being a former college footall player. And that the Billboard articles are not loading today does not mean they did not exist when offfered. Maybe their servers are having a problem, but at the time I listed them as sources I was reading them.  When a nominator claims someone has received no coverage in independent sources, it is important to show the error of that statement. As for notability, you taught me that such is is not determined by what a source writes about a topic, but through the fact that they do write something. We may disagree, but the GNG and WP:MUSBIO #1 are met.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * it's probably true that my standards have gotten a little more demanding over the years, presumably due to the amount of junk I've seen. I don't think I ever really said that it doesn't matter what the source says, it matters that it talks about the subject in a substantial and non-trivial way, and that it talks about matters that would be relevant to notability for something. I once accepted the GNG as a good solution to dilemmas about notability, but I now think it's been made less helpful by the very large amount of material available to us & its variability by subject field, and we need to interpret it according to what sort of sourcing is to be expected in the field : this is popular music, and extensive sourcing is available for anything likely to be notable. The key question for both the GNG and MUSBIO1 is the same: whether the coverage is nontrivial. As I see it, this depends on the contents of the Billboard material. Do you have access to the print? But if it's a matter of overall judgment, I defer to you in this subject area, so I've changed to uncertain. ` DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It was some of the demontrably incorrect statements by the nominator, based upon article state, and easily dispelled by two minutes of WP:BEFORE, that raised my hackles. Is this fellow the most notale person ever?  No.  Does WP:SIGCOV require sources be "substantive" in content or "only" about the topic being sourced? Not at all... simply that they be more than "trivial" and provide enough detail so no original research is needed to extract the content. Is he receiving coverage in a more-than-trival manner in numerous reliable sources... even if not all are substantive? Yes. Could the article and the project benefit by this topic being expanded and sourced over time and through regular editing? Sure. Does he not being as notable as someone like Keith Richards mean we delete? I think not.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Looking at the available sourcing, he does appear to meet the GNG, at minimum, with ample coverage. The article could certainly be better formatted and the sources listed above used, but I see no reason to delete it. Silver  seren C 03:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Silverseren sums it up nicely; enough coverage exists in reliable sources for this person to satisfy WP:GNG and criterion 1 of WP:MUSICBIO.  Gongshow  Talk 07:52, 11 August 2012 (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.