Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Stump (3rd 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. There was a rough consensus that the sources presented were not enough to make this subject meet our notability guidelines. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Stump

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Renominating per WP:NPASR recommendation from User:Sandstein, as the last AFD had only one participant after three weeks.

As I stated last time, the sourcing here is horrendous. Most of it is just a personal blog, along with a few clickbait listicles about how "weird" the sheet music is and some YouTube videos of people pretending to perform it. There is an obituary cited, but obits in and of themselves are not reliable sources in the absence of anything else. (Furthermore, I could not find this particular obit anywhere else besides in the blog, so its use as a source doesn't pass muster anyway.)

The only participant in the last AFD added a clipping from the Reading Eagle, but it was written with a personally invested tone that suggests an editorial or otherwise non-journalistic coverage. A book about musicians was also added, but it only mentions Stump passingly in the context of other works.

John Stump and "Faerie's Aire and Death Waltz" have been Internet memes for ages, but there is no biographical or encyclopedic coverage to him or his work outside a few people having fun with it. Not all memes become notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Missouri. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The concerns in your prior nomination were reasonable, but the coverage added during it was enough to establish notability, in my opinion. Walking through the contributing sources:

Fee, Christopher R.; Webb, Jeffery B., eds. (2016). "Death Waltz". American Myths, Legends, and Tall Tales: An Encyclopedia of American Folklore. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. pp. 297–298. ISBN 9781610695688.
This is a two-page encyclopedia entry with a joint focus on one of Stump's works and another piece that shares its name. It's hard to get a word count from Google Books, but it's several hundred words (the font is tiny), so it's clearly WP:SIGCOV in my view.
Gordon, Molly (16 July 1993). "Remove cattle from stage". The Berkshire Eagle. p. 7. Retrieved 19 February 2022.
This is an arts column reviewing one of Stump's works in a regional newspaper of record in Massachusetts. It's unquestionably SIGCOV, and I disagree that the author's casual tone means she is unable to write about Stump independently—she has no relationship to him beyond reviewing his work.
Kemper, Gary (13 February 2006). "In Memorium: John Stump". Glendale Focus. Vol. 3, no. 2. p. 3. Retrieved 27 November 2020.
This is a reported obituary in a local magazine written by its publisher, the only complication being that he knew Stump. You write that obits in and of themselves are not reliable sources in the absence of anything else, but per the previous nomination, I believe you are confusing paid obituaries with reported ones. There's a huge difference—paid ones are supplied by the person's family and therefore don't count as independent. Reported ones absolutely do count. Regarding your being unable to find the obit independently, that is immaterial: per WP:V, Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access.

Any two of those three is sufficient, so take your pick. There's further coverage from several other sources that aren't quite SIGCOV, e.g. Gersten, Jennifer (25 September 2017). "4 More Unplayable Works (That Were Eventually Played)". WQXR. Retrieved 28 November 2020.

Beyond GNG, there's a case under WP:ANYBIO #2. I agree with you that not all memes become notable, but a satirical work that's persisted for 40 years has a much greater claim to cultural significance than the latest internet fad—Stump composed what is likely the most prominent example of satirical sheet music of all time. I don't think we could justify pages about both Stump and Faerie's Aire, but we have enough for one, and it makes sense to have it located at Stump given that he's the broader topic. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb: I don't need your filibuster. I just explained why the sources aren't legit. The encyclopedia is only a passing mention. The Reading Eagle article is an editorial with a personally invested tone. And the obituary only seems to exist on that one blog post, because I can't find it anywhere else online. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails GNG, NBAND, and ANYBIO. There's a case to be made that Faerie's Aire and Death Waltz passes GNG but Stump certainly does not. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you speak to whether or not you found the encyclopedia entry to contribute to notability? Based on my OCR scan, it's approximately 930 words, split equally between Stump and the folktale, which is clear SIGCOV. I would be willing to restructure the article around Faerie's Aire as an ATD, but per the WP:BROADCONCEPT guideline, I think the current structure is better. I note that, per WP:NBIO, reviews or coverage of a person's work (the Gordon piece being a quintessential example) count toward notability for the person. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Google books doesn't provide much of a preview but I don't see SIGCOV for Stump, only for Death Waltz. I think the outcome of this discussion needs to be deletion, regardless of any future effort to restructure the piece. Both articles about this subject and Death Waltz already resulted in deletion, so it might be un-wise to try again right now; maybe in another decade better sources will exist, per WP:NODEADLINE. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you haven't yet been able to access the full Encyclopedia of American Folklore entry, it may have been premature for you to !vote. Per above, coverage of Death Waltz counts for Stump: The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work. ... In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The first two sources I provided count as such coverage. I guess you could try to make an IAR case that that's not enough, but Stump's enduring popularity makes me inclined to be generous rather than stringent in interpreting guidance here—there has been enough coverage to write a fully sourced medium-length biography page, and it serves readers better to keep it than to delete it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can see no further purpose in this conversation; my !vote stands. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've looked at the sources as noted; the obits all seem to be based from or refer to the one by the subject's nephew, which lean into primary sources, I believe. In re the newspaper arts column, I think it would be stronger were it in a larger newspaper, and not a small regional daily. I just don't think any of these really cut it to establish notability. There may be something that could be done with the Death Waltz, potentially, if there is any scholarly review of the piece that has emerged or does emerge, but right now, this doesn't make it for me. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The page on the encyclopedia is here and the section is titled Death Waltz. I don't believe it's adds anything for GNG purposes for the person, rather for the work. The other references have already been discussed. An article of the work might be more notable. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable to me and well sourced.XavierGreen (talk) 02:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@XavierGreen: WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid argument. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree with the above analysis of the presented sources. Reyk _YO! 03:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'. Needs more organized sourcing.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 06:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough WP:RS to establish GNG. Veverve (talk) 06:24, 5 April 2022 (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.