Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan avery

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 22:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Avery

[edit]

Ryan Avery is apparently a local musician and comedian. He has received a few writeups in local papers. He/his bands are, as yet, unsigned. Google returns quite a few results for the name, but, on the first few pages at least, they appear to be for a different individual. Most of the supporting references are to pages created by or for Ryan Avery. I do not feel the subject is noteworthy or encyclopedic. Shimeru 19:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I should probably also note that this is a contested prod, for the record. Shimeru 19:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, speedy if nom withdrawn. Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (not to mention on Mark Mothersbaugh's website). Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style AND the local scene of a city. That's two pieces of WP:MUSIC criteria right there. There's a bit more to it than that, of course... Google hits, AMG.com entries, and Amazon sales really don't apply in this case, nor do major labels. Avery has performed with or has working relationships with other acts listed here on Wikipedia, such as Quintron, Miss Pussycat, Captain Ahab, Kimya Dawson, Brodie Foster Hubbard, and Aquabats. He is an important figure in the music, art, comedy, and improv scenes of a major American city. And, he is an unusual individual, which was the main reason I decided to write an article about him (not to mention the fact he was on the cover for Phoenix New Times, which convinced me it was time for this article). Note: I have informed some of my fellow editors, who have worked on articles about similar subjects, about this article and this AfD to get their opinion. PT (s-s-s-s) 19:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Of local interest only. Very few Google hits, blank entry on AMG, fails every test on WP:MUSIC. —Chowbok 20:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable. However, I have to ask, you aren't Ryan Avery, are you, Parsssseltongue? --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 20:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems to be of merely local interest Dlyons493 Talk 01:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - local interest, up-and-coming, maybe, but not until 2008 according to the article. John (Jwy) 03:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I just got spammed by Ryan Avery asking me to visit his Wikipedia page. This isn't MySpace. --Infamous30 05:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. First of all, I am not the subject of this article. I have written many Arizona related articles, this is just one. Second of all, I asked you to read this article and comment on the AfD because of your edits to articles which I felt were related. I do not appreciate your incivil personal attack, which certainly did not assume good faith. I will take this conversation to your talk page, but I request you strike out your misapprehension above. PT (s-s-s-s) 16:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh...my mistake. I've never heard of Ryan Avery. Can't help you. --Infamous30 17:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I have said before (and this is not intended for Infamous, just a general principle he/she reminded me of), just because you haven't heard of someone doesn't make them non-notable. My whole reason for letting other editors know about this article and the corresponding AfD is because I was hoping they'd read the article, see the associations the artist has made, activities he has participated in, check out the sources I have cited, and then hopefully vote for a keep. However, in no way was I trying to influence anyone's vote (I have informed plenty of editors about other AfDs that they disagreed with me on), merely putting the article in front of them and seeing what they might think. I just think AfDs on music should be voted on by people who have an idea on what the music scene is actually like, not people who only know pop music and think because someone isn't on the radio, that it isn't notable. PT (s-s-s-s) 17:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of all musicians, etc., just the notable ones. Other databases/websites exist to list everyone in entertainment. It's all about quality, not quantity. Rklawton 19:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am well aware that this is not a musician directory. I have asserted notability in the article, with reliable, cited sources. PT (s-s-s-s) 20:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Must you reply to every delete vote? You've stated your case, now please just let the vote continue. —Chowbok 23:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, AfD pages are not all about voting but about discussing the matter at hand. Votes are secondary. Replies, civil discussion, and thoroughly exploring the issue are the order of the day. Is there some reason you feel it important to cut the discussion short? Rklawton 04:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you, Rklawton. We may disagree, but at least you are letting me disagree. :) And as far as why I responded, I respond when I feel a comment is based on bad logic. Yes, Wikipedia is not MySpace, but I feel that doesn't have anything to do with this debate. I don't vote keep or write an article on every band I come across. I would not have put the article up if I did not have sources and an assertion of notability in the article. Arguments like "this isn't MySpace" or "delete, I've never heard of the guy" don't seem relevant. PT (s-s-s-s) 14:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • First of all, I am a little disturbed that PT feels the need to argue with every person who votes for deletion. I understand you are trying to save your article from being deleted, but you aren't Floyd Landis. This debate shouldn't be taken personally. And if saying that means I am being incivil and not assuming good faith, then so be it. From what I can tell, Avery is not a nationally recognized artist. He isn't listed on any major music databases. I can't find references to him in any national sources on performance art or experimental music...maybe someone else can? However, I've seen numerous Wikipedia pages on artists who are known only locally or regionally. I guess it depends on whether Ryan Avery represents enough of a unique phenomena in Phoenix to warrant his own page. From what I can gather, he may meet that criteria. --Infamous30 15:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Not every person. Only when someone says something that I felt needed a response. User:Dlyons493 voted and said something I disagreed with, but I did not respond to him/her. PT (s-s-s-s)
  • Strong Keep, Ryan Avery has permeated the culture of Art Link First Fridays, which has galleries that show artists from all over the country, not just from Arizona proper. It represents an art movement that just happens to be taking place in a city not steretypically art-centric. The claim "Local interest only" is only a superficial claim in this case, as galleries such as Perihelion and The Trunk Space frequently welcome artists from New York, California, New Orleans, etc. Anyone as prolific as Ryan Avery is within this community (see list at beginning of first "strong keep" entry, as well as the links within disputed article) have ties to, and/or has toured and traveled to many other states, making their impact more than just a "local" impact, without mention of the Mission in Portland he will be undertaking, or of Mark Mothersbaugh's diary entry, worthy of note as more than anecdotal evidence of his impact across the state/city. Otherwise, under such scrutinous criteria, those other local artists listed would be disputable as well (and--given ample evidence through more sources than just google or a recording artist database--they are not). In short, I argue "up-and-coming" versus "local interest only," being that his career has essentially just started, and has already undergone an exponential impact, with a diverse history in multiple art areas, given its incredibly short span. With regards to the responding to deletes, that is the modus operandi of civil discussion; comment or question, then response. If each delete request was not followed by a comment or elucidation as to the logic behind it, it would not warrant a response, it would be a simple "yes" or "no" vote. Dain Quentin Gore 07:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • One edit wonder - Dain has one edited in Wikipedia, and you just read it (above). Rklawton 14:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • See Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Parsssseltongue. —Chowbok 14:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, I am not a sock puppet. I don't use aliases on the internet, this is my real name and always has been. Dain Quentin Gore exists under no other alias on Wikipedia. In addition, I had to research the html uses, etc. of this site just to enter my vote. I had to copy/paste any markups I used such as "strong keep," and I avoid using excessive linking/hrefs to save time and avoid mistakes. This issue has made me join wikipedia because I have seen many artists sites here that have ultimately been kept under similar circumstances. I know about this topic through an email I received (not from Ryan Avery). I have, however, painted sock puppets. Dain Quentin Gore 15:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • As I recall, that fits the definition of a "meat puppet". Rklawton 15:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't have an agenda. Labelling tends to misdirect the actual debate at hand. There was no "call to action" on the part of the email, it was a link to Ryan Avery's wikipedia entry. I made the decision myself to add to the debate. Dain Quentin Gore 16:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • By "meat puppet," the above is refering to something described here Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Meatpuppets. This is a sort of thing that is to be avoided in these debates. Yes, you have joined the debate now and are welcome to make comments. It will be up to some administrator who closes the debate, however, to decide how to weigh these comments. -MrFizyx 17:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'd just like to add... I'm not Ryan Avery, I'm not Dain Gore, I'm not the man (or woman) on the grassy knoll, and I never leave Wikipedia's pages to talk about anything Wikipedia, so I don't know about the e-mail being referred to. PT (s-s-s-s) 18:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep-It may be inappropriate for me to comment on this entry as I am mentioned in the entry. If it is inappropriate I apologize. I recommend a strong keep as Ryan was the cover story in the New Times-Phoenix edition. The New Times is a collection of alternative weekly’s based out of Phoenix and should be considered a major new source. It is the same company that currently owns the Village Voice. Here is a link to the article.....http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/Issues/2006-08-03/news/feature.html... Kevin Patterson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.115.138 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete nn, topic fails inclusion guidelines. {{RPA}} Sock (or Meat) -puppetry clearly likely being used in a bid to keep this. (Update: let me amplify my vote: I agree with Chowbok, RKLawton, et al wrt notability.) Eusebeus 16:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your statement that the article fails inclusion guidelines is just plain wrong. Read WP:MUSIC it meets notability criteria, as asserted in the article, on the talk page, and in this AfD. So, pray tell, since I have refuted the "nn" claims, what else do you have? PT (s-s-s-s) 19:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm restoring the above comment as I don't feel it was obviously personal (no one was named). At the same time I feel the need to disagree. The accuser in the case of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Parsssseltongue appears to have recanted so it would be wise not to jump to any conclusions here. It would be better to focus your comments on the reason that you feel it is "nn". -MrFizyx 18:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • For what it's worth, I was convinced by the comments there that there wasn't enough evidence to bring forth a sock puppet accusation, and decided that I had made a mistake for that reason. I'm still very suspicious of the sudden appearances here. —Chowbok 18:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • What is so difficult to understand? People found out about the article and the fact that it's up for deletion, so they decided to chime in. Is this the first time this has ever happened on Wikipedia? And is it really my fault, especially considering I do not discuss Wikipedia with people who are not on Wikipedia? (First rule of Fight Club and all that...). PT (s-s-s-s) 19:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Uh huh. So you sent messages to a bunch of unfamiliar Wikipedia users that you hoped would vote to keep this, and at least two people who had never used Wikipedia again just happened to "find out" about this AfD, but you had nothing to do with that. —Chowbok 19:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, I left notices on the talk pages of editors who had worked on articles relating to the subject, hoping they would vote keep on this article. The two new Wikipedia editors who began their time on Wikipedia by voting keep first came to Wikipedia on their own. I had something to do with it only in the fact that I created the article on the subject that attracted them here in the first place, but there is no collusion between us. This is the third time you have made an incivil bad faith accusation towards me. My next step will be dispute resolution. PT (s-s-s-s) 19:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's not bad faith: I really, honestly don't believe you. My accusations may be incorrect, but they are brought forth with the purest of motives. And I don't see why you're accusing me of incivility; I've said nothing against you personally. How exactly could one bring forth such suspicions in a manner you would consider civil? —Chowbok 20:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I would say by the fourth time I have told you "NO, I DIDN'T," I would say it's incivil to keep it going. I have a good history here of editing and playing by the rules in the AfDs. You're past the point of good faith issues and venturing into dickish territory. PT (s-s-s-s) 21:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rebuttal - What's so clear about this? Your accusation is baseless and in bad faith. I cannot control the fact that people familiar with the notability of the subject have decided to chime in on the AfD. I have not contacted anyone about the article or its deletion outside of other Wikipedia editors, and I am not in breach of Wikipedia policy. PT (s-s-s-s) 16:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • QuestionI have been reading over the rules for qualification to see what is allowed/not allowed and proper in these conversations. I have not been able to find a definition of sock puppet. From the above comments I can get the jist, but is there definition availible? Kevin Patterson
        • Go to WP:SOCK. PT (s-s-s-s) 20:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • So long as we identify them as such, the admin reviewing the discussion can take it into consideration. They are under no obligation to simply tally the votes. As a result, it's not really necessary to delete a sock puppet/meat puppet's votes. In fact, the admin may want to take this sort of misbehavior into consideration when making the delete/keep decision. Rklawton 21:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • But none of that type of misbehavior is happening on this AfD. PT (s-s-s-s) 21:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Correction: this AfD has seen the appearance of several "meat puppets" - editors whose only contribution to Wikipedia has been to come forward in this AfD in support of the "Keep" vote. Rklawton 19:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Tally so far: So far we have seen PT vote twice to keep, and we have seen two meat puppets vote one time each to keep. We have seen six other editors (not including the nomination) voting to delete. Rklawton 19:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Correction: I voted once. Another editor, Ginkgo100, voted once for Keep, as well. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia. But I did not do this, so there is no misbehavior. Frankly, I think all the bad faith accusations taint this debate far more than two new editors who showed up for the AfD, and I don't see a real consensus here. PT (s-s-s-s) 20:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: Is NN synonymous with "Local Interest Only?" If so, no strict criteria exists to delete. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability: "this is not an actual policy or guideline."

Note that the verification (Search Engine) test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_ways_to_verify_notability_of_articles) comes with the same caveat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Non-notable_topics_do_not_belong:

"The word notable is often used as a synonym of "unique" or "newsworthy." Many vanity articles are deleted because the people discussed are non-notable. Sometimes, there is some content in a non-notable article that can be merged into another article. For example, If a British boy wins an award from his police station for creating a new organization scheme for the British Police Cadets, he may write a vanity article about himself. It may be judged that the new organizational scheme was notable while the details of the award ceremony and the identity of the boy were non-notable. In this case, the notable content in the vanity article on the British boy can be merged into a larger article on cadet schemes in Britain."

Presents a potential case to merge with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_New_Times under "noteworthy articles."

Also, the "meat puppet" charge stands unproven. I have so far presented arguments that have yet to be refuted or even brought up/mentioned again. Edit: deleted comment not pertaining to the debate. Dain Quentin Gore 00:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • What do you mean unproven? This is the definition of meat puppet[1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by rklawton (talk • contribs)
    • I clicked the link, rklawton, and it showed me that Dain Quentin Gore has been active on Wikipedia. He may be a new editor, but I don't think that makes his vote less relevant. The article on this subject he has an interest in attracted him to Wikipedia and has inspired him to join the community. Unless you are looking to exclude new editors, then you must look upon this as a point in favor of the article. PT (s-s-s-s) 18:29, 10 August 2006 (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/Ryan_avery&oldid=1136108491"