Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Johns (singer)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 both details on talk. JERRY talk contribs 00:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Johns (singer)

edit
Michael Johns (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Michael Johns (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable singer; his best claim to fame appears to be having been part of a band called The Rising, which put out one two albums on a major label and then got dropped and vanished; I haven't seen evidence that they actually meet WP:BAND. I will also be nominating his iTunes-released solo album. Brianyoumans (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mjf08 (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Above user has been indef. blocked as sock. Torc2 (talk) 02:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still have some questions about meeting WP:BAND. Was the Maverick album ever actually released? (Several of the sources seem to think it wasn't.) Was Johns still part of the band when it signed with Columbia? (And no release ever came out from Columbia anyways.) I don't think Beverly Martel counts as a major label; could be wrong. If The Rising did tour nationally, that should be indicated in the article, and that would meet WP:BAND. Brianyoumans (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Updated article per Brianyoumans' suggestion. Mjf08 (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have reverted your change because I can't find any references mentioning a tour. Perhaps you can? Brianyoumans (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Amongst all the Springsteen 'The Rising Tour' noise and with the official flash-based site gone from maverick.com and archive.org? Not with a cursory Google search, no. Mjf08 (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then again there is this 'Touring with Maverick Records’, THE RISING, was a blast! Not only did we tour the states we also got to tour the sea (on the now famous Rock Boat) as well as appearing on the Sharon Osborne Show.' and this:

08.06.2003

THE RISING ON TOUR NOW! Don't miss THE RISING's fall tour, kicking off in Los Angeles on August 7th at The Roxy (http://www.theroxyonsunset.com/)!

For the full tour information and updates, check www.therisingmusic.com

        • Sorry to be a pain in the butt, but this has no details on the tour. It may have been simply a tour of some clubs in California. I didn't actually look at the personal Myspace page, after the thing exploded visual crapola all over my screen. But, a personal Myspace site is not really a good reference anyways. Brianyoumans (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your remarks about Myspace are unsurprising but given the very first point is already satisfied there seems little point wasting any more time hunting for verifiable information in a sea of Bruce Springsteen resources. Mjf08 (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • With a more intelligent Google search this article popped up from the Nashville City Paper ('While getting signed to Maverick Records was a major step for Atlanta-based rock group The Rising, the band realizes it's only the beginning. That's why the quintet is taking their music on the road, playing smaller venues and trying diligently to build a fan base.') along with this one from Music Morsels, 'The Innovative Monthly Music Industry Newsletter': 'They have the record deal from a major label, they have an album about to be released early next year with songs going to radio, and they are poised to tour the U.S. and beyond to support the release.'. There's your verification for 1, 4, 5 and 11 (even though any one of them should satisfy WP:BAND Mjf08 (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - I think Mjf08 might be treading of WP:COI grounds. I know when Elliot Yamin's album was going to come out, Rate Your Music (and several other review sites) were spammed with "street teams" of people doing nothing but plugging the artist. Torc2 (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe so but at least it's no secret. Then again we're talking about contributing to a balanced argument and making a few minor edits; hardly 'street teams of people doing nothing but plugging the artist'. If you don't like it, don't count the vote (but do consider the information that spent some time to collate). Mjf08 (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being a secret has nothing to do with it. At minimum it's a conflict of interest, and possibly it's just advertising. It's also a bit disturbing that the only other keep vote is from a new account that's made no edits other than voting on this AfD.Torc2 (talk) 07:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the WP:COI article you referenced you're flat out declaring these edits as giving a 'priority to outside interests' over the interests of Wikipedia and going on to imply that they're 'just advertising', even though his article existed for over a year beforehand and most of the offending edits were minor. Apparently being transparent with allegiances rather than choosing a more opaque username wasn't the best strategy, or even hosting encyclopaedic content here rather than on an 'about' page hosted elsewhere, though given the hostile reception received as a new user the enthusiasm for contributing to this community resource is waning. As per comment above, the very first point is satisfied so the rest is academic IMO. Mjf08 (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for missing this on the first pass but if you don't like the other vote then take it up with the user directly - it's no surprise new people are looking at, interested in and contributing to this article now. Mjf08 (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - *Being on the ballot is not the same as being "nominated", and not being able to provide a verifiable source of the statement excludes it from being a basis in Wikipedia to keep. The reviews, albums, and tours for The Rising do not establish sufficient notability for a separate article on Johns. #8 is unsourced, and merely being on the ballot is not sufficient evidence of notability. #9 is unsourced, #10 is unsourced (his name isn't anywhere in the link provided) and does not establish notability (contributed how?), #11 and #12 are unsourced. Torc2 (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lee aka Johns is prominent, if not the subject of, all the articles, especially Crossroads: Michael Lee Of The Rising and The Rising's Michael Lee came to the US with a dream: Recording a demo in 2001, Lee went to Los Angeles where he showcased for several labels, eventually inking an exclusive pact with Maverick Records. He then began assembling the elements of his new band, picking and choosing from the talent the LA music scene had to offer (enhanced #1, struck out #8, sourced #11 & #12) when the rest of the sources are found this info will go in the article). Note that it was Lee/Johns who was signed by and released with the major labels too so he personally satisfies #1 and #5 at least, as well as #1 from the composers/lyricists section (which was just added). I trust and hope that you will be updating your vote accordingly (or rescinding it given the sock puppetry debate, unless you still think you can provide a fair assessment of the facts).
  • It's kind of distressing that you'd label due diligence as "two hours wasted", but let's look at the updates. Links in #1 are still all about The Rising and do not support independent notability enough for a separate article about its lead singer. (The Nashville link is the strongest argument for it, but would still be best served by redirecting Michael Johns (singer) and Michael Lee to The Rising.) #4 is still just about The Rising, is still unsourced, and how does one tour the US in a boat anyway? #5 is still only about The Rising and signing with a major label is not the same as releasing an album on a major label. #9 is unsourced and not sufficient to establish notability. #10 is still unsourced and probably not sufficient for notability (contributed how - singing? composing?) #11 is again about The Rising, and doesn't satisify notability guidelines ("Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network" - those are local stations, you also changed the wording of the requirements). #12 is still only about The Rising. And the next #1 is simply not satisfied; none of the examples are notable. You've given, at best, a decent argument against an article on The Rising being deleted, but nothing about Michael Johns has been established to the requirements of WP:V or WP:N for inclusion. I also think it'd be fair to add Future Unknown to this AfD. Torc2 (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While it's possibly interesting to document The Rising for historical reasons, this is missing the point as the true subject is Johns (as clearly identified by the articles) around whom The Rising was formed, but not until *after* 'inking an exclusive pact with Maverick Records'. The guy's aired on national TV and radio, been on a national tour, released at least THREE albums both as a lead singer and soloist, been signed THREE times with THREE different labels (at least two of which are indisputably major), recorded the promo/theme track for a multi-award winning documentary, been the subject of multiple independent reviews, performed repeatedly at a number of music 'landmarks' like the Viper Room, held regular scheduled performances at a number of venues in Atlanta over many years and is now featured on commercials around the country for the highest rated show on television for 5 years running while said to be one of the favourites., and this is just the stuff dredged up so far - there's no doubt more to come. Apparently WP:BAND is merely rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion so hopefully common sense will prevail. With a 2000 word debate and an unjustified sock puppet accusation over the suitability of a 100 word article it should hardly be surprising that nitpicking over article subjects (#1), grammatical errors (#4), geographical coverage (#11), etc. is getting tiresome, especially when this time could have been spent improving the article.
  • You're still just not clear on what WP:N and WP:V means, and you're still using word games to inflate your guy's achievements. OK, again...line by line for your latest:
  • ONE: Very, very, very important: The achievements of the The Rising have ZERO affect on Johns. Any articles about The Rising that included Johns is OF NO USE. His solo album is not sufficient to warrant WP:N. Notability achieved by The Rising do not automatically transfer to each member separately. That a clear Wiki rule: WP:NOTINHERITED. Stop using anything involving The Rising to propote Johns. It is not applicable.
  • The notability of "The Viper Room" is not transfered to the band playing it, per WP:NOTINHERITED.
  • "Signed three times with two majors" OK, first, the Rising signings DO NOT COUNT again. Maverick is a mid-level indie, and signing with Columbia is meaningless if they release NOTHING. The threshold for WP:BAND is two albums on a major. Johns has one albums out on a minor label. Not sufficient per WP:BAND. His alleged appearance on American Idol is WP:CRYSTAL material, and cannot be included until after it happens. That's it. There's no more room for debate on this. Subject has been sufficiently beaten to death. Torc2 (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (There was no article on 'The Rising' anyway and the content has been incorporated into this article where it belongs - Mjf08)
  • (We agree on this point - Mjf08)
  • (A 15 year old label that's signed 60 artists including Alanis, Madonna and The Prodigy etc. is hardly 'minor' - Mjf08)
  • (except for the commercials featuring him on national television - Mjf08)
  • That there was no article on The Rising is irrelevant to this article. If that band met WP:MUSIC, that band should have an article. Future Unknown is not a Johns album. Beverly Martel is not a major label, and anybody can publish through iTunes (see Tunecore), and self-published or independently-published albums released this way (such as though through CDBaby) are generally not sufficient indicators of notability. Do the commercials give Johns' name? Having your face flashed on a commercial is not sufficient notability. Torc2 (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WP:NOTINHERETED rule works both ways - Maverick signed Johns and then created The Rising around him (per articles/quotes above), the two main reviews target Johns while referencing The Rising, and you've completely omitted Beverly Martel who (like Maveric) signed Johns himself. In any case The Rising isappears to be dead and Johns is just getting started. We do agree that this subject has been beaten to death however so what's left of this weekend is going to be spent working on the article itself (which is probably what should have been done from the start).
comment Yes, it is. User was determined to be sockmaster and blocked 24 hours. Torc2 (talk) 02:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article has been completely overhauled since the AfD and and addresses (with verifiable references) many of the WP:BAND criteria (both as 'The Rising' and independently).

The Speedy Keep vote stands as the open AfD is causing confusion in various forums and American Idol (season 7) starts tomorrow. In any case it wouldn't be the first time an article has been kept on the basis that it's better to keep something that might not be notable than to delete something that might be. Mjf08 (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and/or Merge. Verifiably satisfies around half the items in the notability guidelines (and looks like that's just the stuff found on the Internet; no print, magazines, TV etc yet). The AI7 commercial is conspicuously absent and it's not WP:CRYSTAL material if he's in the promos. Appears the nominator's concerns have since been resolved too. That said there's no need for 4 separate articles so lets Merge The Rising (apparently already done) and the album(s) (todo), thereby deleting 3 of 4 articles. samj (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Just spotted that the AI7 commercial was deliberately ommitted as a spoiler but guess it will be added soon as the season premiere is only a few hours away. 18:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete both: Despite beau coup questionable citations, fails WP:MUSIC. —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 11:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Johns_(singer)&oldid=1138076980"