Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David C. Hëwitt

: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. JohnCD (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

=[[David C. Hëwitt]]=

{{notavote}}

:{{la|David C. Hëwitt}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David C. Hëwitt}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|David C. Hëwitt}})

Procedural nomination. Article was prodded by {{user|RHaworth}} with the rationale "no evidence of notability." The article creator explicitly objected to deletion on the talk page, thereby failing the primary criteria for deletion by prod, so I'm bringing it here. I should note that the article has been deleted twice as A7.

I am neutral for now. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

:*Comment IMDb is not a [WP:SOURCE|reliable source]]. (GregJackP (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC))

:*Comment CD releases alone are not indicative of notability. (GregJackP (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC))

:*Comment On the contrary, much like Wikipedia IMDb has very strict rules as to which films and artists they allow on their site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twenty Forty 080 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

::*Comment - Please see WP:NF for the use of IMDb as a verifiable, reliable source for Wikipedia. The notability guideline specifically excludes the use of IMDb as a source of notability. (GregJackP (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC))

  • Delete - There's no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • KeepComment To appear on their database IMDb require a much higher level of notability than Wikipedia's minimum.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Are Release (talk • contribs) Image:Achtung.svg— Duplicate !vote: Are Release (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

:*Comment - perhaps, but we're not on IMDb, we are on WP, and the WP standards preclude the use of IMDb to establish notability. The sources used by IMDb can be used, you just can't use IMDb itself. (GregJackP (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC))

  • Please, only one!vote per customer. -- Whpq (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep This guy played lead guitar with the biggest death metal band to come out of the UK (Gorerotted) who signed to the biggest metal label in the world (Metal Blade). And for fans like me it’s good to read about their history they’re awesome musicians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die Kappelmeister (talk • contribs) 09:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC) — Die Kappelmeister (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete. Lack of reliable sources and smells like written by his agent. — RHaworth {{toolbar|separator=dot|talk | contribs }} 15:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Generally though persons of note do employ agents to guide their careers and write press releases for them - that is how it works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twenty Forty 080 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

:*Comment - Wikipedia is not the place to put press releases. (GregJackP (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC))

:*Comment - Semantics - generally persons of note do employ agents to guide their careers and write 'Wikipedia' articles for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twenty Forty 080 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

::*Reply - Actually no. Notable people get written about before any publicist is needed to write it for them. -- Whpq (talk) 01:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment - One should note that all of the unsigned comments have contributed ONLY to this page or the article in question,and are possibly socks of the original creator, Are Release. Second, the sources cited state that this is an up-and-coming (maybe) composer, and is therefore not notable. Therefore, Delete. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

:*Comment - See this link for some 'notable composers of orchestral soundtracks': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_score#Orchestral_film_scoresAre Release (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC).

:**You can't use Wikipedia as a source, let alone to demonstrate notability. And let's not ignore the fact that you added his name to that article yourself: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Film_score&action=historysubmit&diff=348413439&oldid=348307642]. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment: Why was this relisted? All of the keep !votes are by SPA's and all of their arguments amount to "I like it" or "it's on IMDb". Most of the references on the article are not independent of the subject, one is a Wikipedia article which the article creator edited to add Mr. Hewitt's name, and another may be reliable but doesn't establish notability in my view. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I am changing my !vote from neutral to delete per my comment above. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete The references are either PR info or, in the case of onenightatthecurtain, inaccessible. (I keep all popups blocked, and this site seems inaccessible unless popups are enabled for it. If people are stupid enough to work like that when they create a site, OK. I just don't visit them.) And the other two are Wikipedia and IMDb - neither accepted here as reliable references. As yet unpublished articles don't count. Apart from that, he's a man (sorry, person) doing a job. Not a John Williams yet. Some day, maybe. Peridon (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete neither the article nor any argument above convinces me this passes WP:MUSIC. And I echo KuyaBriBri's sentiment: I don't see why this was relisted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Perhaps because WP:RELISTINGISEVIL??? (just kidding, I've nominated that ridiculous page for deletion too.) JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 17:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: - If you choose not to access a reference source on an external website because you feel 'pop ups are stupid' that is hardly the fault of the person in the article and is an irrelevant comment.

::Irrelevant comment Popups aren't stupid - most of them are money-spinning adverts that I don't want to know about. The people that insist on them, or on the latest version of Flash (for another case), are. They lose visitors if they are not prepared to give a more accessible option for those using slower machines just for the sake of being, err, flash... The link was given in the article. If I can't access it, others won't be able to either. Not my loss. Possibly yours, if it's your site. Peridon (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment: - Seemingly, it appears information about the subject matter (or an article) may only be added to the Wikipedia pages by persons who have no knowledge of the subject matter itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Are Release (talk • contribs) 09:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - That is only one editor, dealing with one problematic link. The reality is that the "onenightatthecurtain" site is for the TV pilot the article's subject worked on. It also fails to be an independent reliable source for establishing notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Summary Here is my summary about the status of this article and deletion debate. It has many problems including:
  1. Notability: No demonstration of notability, and no outside sources other than the IMDB. Clearly fails the guidelines
  2. References: Referenced to other Wikipedia articles and the IMDB, not accepted sources. It also is clearly not done in the correct style.
  3. The Author: The author has practically admitted to being an agent of the person who this article is written about, has created meatpuppets to sway the vote of this afd, and has repeatedly demonstrated their lack of knowledge of the way Wikipedia works (people can be hired to create Wikipedia articles, NPOV and citation issues).
  4. Flawed Arguments: The creator claims here that "creating, managing and updating a page is a time consuming business. I will adhere to all of the necessary editing protocols in time but it is frustrating to have to restart the same article over and over from scratch." If the article does not belong on WP, then it does not belong. Unless he becomes more notable, and can have reliable sources found, then most of the article is unencylopedic and constitutes original research.
  5. The Numbers: Over 10 trusted WP editors have voted to delete, upholding the Notability policy. The only keep votes come from the creator as discussed above and his/her meatpuppets (SPAs).

The above five points clearly show why Deleting this article Right Now is necessary. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment: I asked the admin who relisted this article why he relisted it when consensus clearly leaned towards delete and he left me [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKuyabribri&action=historysubmit&diff=350258349&oldid=348621973 this response] on my talk page. —KuyaBriBriTalk 13:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete The problem here is twofold. First, we don't have any substantive, independent sources, just credits. That causes this article to fail the GnG. Second, it's not clear that the subject would pass WP:MUSIC although it's a near miss in a couple of areas. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:55, 22 March 2010 (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.