Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Shalvoy

: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. There is no clear consensus here - although numerically there are just more "keeps", a few of these appear to be SPAs, and furthermore would appear to be working together to keep articles which they think should be kept. However, I am closing this without prejudice against a speedy renomination should it be considered necessary -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Following a request to re-evaluate my close, I have now done so. Taking into account the co-workers involved here, which would count as one single person (see WP:COWORKER), and the SPAs, the consensus is in fact to delete the article, as there is insufficient evidence that the subjects meets the notability criteria -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

=[[Peter Shalvoy]]=

:{{la|Peter Shalvoy}} – (View AfDView log){{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/reports/afd/{{urlencode:Peter Shalvoy}}.html|2=Afd statistics}}

:({{Find sources|Peter Shalvoy}})

Artist does not meet WP:MUSIC criteria. Although there is one source of FOXNY, it is not substantial coverage. Article was created by an editor who belonged to the subject's undergraduate fraternity. Racepacket (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

:Note Seven (7) day review period as per Deletion review ends at 17:58, November 2, 2010.--Cmagha (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

::I'm not sure what the purpose of this note is. The admins/editors who close AfDs all know about the seven day period. However, nominations can be relisted (i.e. the discussion period extended) if the closing editor believes that more time would be likely to generate a clearer consensus.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_discussion]. Is that what you meant? Voceditenore (talk) 10:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep These sources are sufficient to prove threshold notability. While some of the sources are non-traditional media, they come within Wikipedia guidelines for sourcing. With respect to Racepacket’s allegations of editor conflict of interest, Racepacket ought to be careful. The Cornell WikiProject page lists Racepacket as a former member of the Cornell University Board of Trustees, Class of 1973. Is this article not within the Board of Trustees guidelines for suitable identification with the University? Does techno music, blue grass music and horror fiction somehow convey an image the Cornell Board of Trustees would rather not present? How can we tell Racepacket is not conflicted in his or her initiation of an AfD. Indeed, who from the Cornell community is talking with Racepacket, guiding Racepacket’s actions. The article is neutral in its writing and the sourcing confirms notability. And what about Racepacket’s articles, many of which are on Cornell topics? Are those conflicted if this one is? Wehatweet (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC) — Wehatweet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- RayTalk 05:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article lacks sufficient independent coverage to establish the notability requirements at WP:Music and/or WP:Creative. All of the sources appear to come from blogs and other un-reliable sources that do not meet wikipedia's standards at Wikipedia:Verifiability. Even the fox news link appears to be a form of blog or self-publishment without the rigourous fact checking that would go into an official article by a staff reporter.4meter4 (talk) 11:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: As I stated in another AfD, Conflict of interest (in either the article's author or the editor who nominated it for deletion) is irrelevant to whether an article should be kept. Please do not clutter this discussion with commentary on other editors and their motivations and focus instead on what this discussion is supposed to be about. To be kept, the article's subject must pass at least one of the 12 notability criteria for musicians and ensembles. I have formatted the references to make them clearer and have searched pretty exhaustively for any further references (under a variety of search terms, and in a news archive to which I have a subscription [http://www.highbeam.com]) without success. Unfortunately, at this stage the article's subject doesn't pass the first one:

    1. Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable"

    The only work cited in the article which qualifies as reliable, non-trivial, and independent of the subject is the short spot on Good Day New York (Fox news). Most editors would not consider that "multiple" coverage. Analysis of remaining references:

    • Padgett, Ray, [http://www.covermesongs.com/tag/outkast "Under the Radar: edibleRed"], covermesongs.com, July 23, 2010. (website with reader-generated content – not considered a reliable source)

    • {{Cite web |title=Shalvoy Music |accessdate= August 1, 2010 |url=http://www.shalvoymusic.com/index.html}} (not independent of the subject)

    •The Hudspeth Report, [http://www.thehudspethreport.com/ResearchingAtlanta/archivesjklm.htm "Lava"], April 2001 (one-line mention of Shalvoy as simply the DJ in a review of an Atlanta dance club – trivial)

    • Paula Abdul's New Show, World [http://wn.com/Paula_Abdul's_New_Show News] (nothing at this link concerning Shalvoy – failed verification)

    • [http://soundcloud.com/petershalvoy/melanie-fiona-it-kills-me-shalvoymusic-remix Audio: Melanie Fiona - It Kills Me (ShalvoyMusic Remix)], soundcloud.com, December 2009 (simple audio file uploaded by Shalvoy himself – trivial and not independent of the subject)

    • [http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4580604/Hempilation_-_VOL_1_-_Gov_t_Mule___Black_Crowes__ Track listing: Black Crowes & Gov't Mule, Hempilation, Vol. 1], thepiratebay.org (one-line mention of Shalvoy as having been the voice used on one track – trivial)

    • YouTube, [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22xWJLiQWCI Video: Straight Up by Paula Abdul, Collette McLafferty (edibleRed) featuring Peter Shalvoy] (one-line comment on Shalvoy by the uploader – trivial, not a reliable source, and possibly not independent of the subject as well) Note also that this is a cover of a Paula Abdul song by another artist, not Paula Abdul

    Wehatweet, given this, can you explain which one of the remaining 11 criteria the article's subject meets instead and why? Alternatively, you can provide further references which do satisfy Criteria #1. Voceditenore (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep. Both detractors are struggling with the new media on this one; Shalvoy is a heavy in the DJ world. Admittedly, this ‘scene’ does not embrace the amount of text and print you want, but Wikipedia does not require. Article meets notability criteria Nos. 1 & 4. his caught me by surprise, as I thought “multiple” would be six or seven. Turns out, [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/multiple “multiple”] just means more than one. Amazing what you learn as a Wiki Defender. With respect to No. 1, there are cites to 3 articles from multiple reliable non-trivial published works independent of the musician. Meets No. 4 due to his role in the Paula Abdul tour. Part of what the detractors are struggling with is generation. “DJs” are no longer the guides with the mirror balls in a disco; they became artists in their own right for Gen X and Gen Y. These ratings are showing older, Baby Boom prejudices. Glad to see conflict of interest is properly not an issue in this article. But why is the allegation not struck in Racepacket’s opening allegation? Lebowski 666 (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Like I've said in a similar AFD talk page, the misstating of the standard is disappointing. It has been represented as far more rigid that it actually is stated in the Wikipedia guidelines. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles Notability,] which states, “Many who spend significant time improving Wikipedia's musical coverage feel that notability is required for a musical topic (such as a band or musical theatre group) to deserve an encyclopedia article. Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept.” Accordingly, I do not think arguments about how trivial a couple sources are should be enough for deletion, especially when there are this many sources that arguably establish notability in both Number 1 and 4 of the guidelines. Therefore, I vote to keep due to the fact that at least 3 of the sources are non-trivial and reliable enough to establish notability.Tea36 (talk) 00:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete in the absence of any further additions of sources which meet the criteria. (a) Both of the above editors are focusing exclusively on the word "multiple" and ignoring on the first and key part of the criteria "Has been the subject of". In other words, this person is sufficiciently notable that they have been the main or one of the main subjects of the sources cited, i.e. not trivial mentions. (b) They are also ignoring the second key requirement that these sources be reliable and independent of the subject. The only one which qualifies per (a) and (b) is the Fox spot.

    Similarly the subject fails to meet criteria 4. "Has received non-trivial coverage of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." Where is the non-trivial coverage from a reliable source, independent of the subject, in which Peter Shalvoy's contribution to Paula Abdul's tour is the main or one of the main subjects? So far not even one has been provided.

    Lebowski 666, simply asserting that "Shalvoy is a heavy in the DJ world" is not a valid argument. And, yes, I am fully aware that modern DJs are considered artists in their own right. However, there is no evidence that this particular artist is notable. Can you please list here the two sources apart from the Fox spot which you consider to be non-trivial and reliable? Tea36, as I pointed out to you at this AfD, if you are proposing that widely accepted guidelines should be completely ignored in this case, you will need to come up with a better argument than the ones you have provided so far. And to both of you, conflict of interest in the article's creators and editors is not germane to whether the subject mets the critera for inclusion. But conflict of interest/close relationship when !voting in an AfD discussion is germane, as was pointed out to both of you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tea36&oldid=393618870#Unblocked] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lebowski_666&oldid=393618421#Unblocked] after this sockpuppet investigation. Voceditenore (talk) 06:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep. Reviewing the criteria for retention, notability is achieved by a minimum of two secondary sources. This subject was the feature of a FOX TV station morning show broadcast in the largest media market in the United States, New York City. He was also the subject of note in Will Ferrell’s award acceptance speech on MTV. Note, Ferrell just doesn’t thank Shalvoy, he lauds him and Shalvoy’s weekly DJ gig in New York City. Supporting these two secondary sources is a listing of original works, which strongly reinforce notability.
  • Reviewing the criteria for retention, notability is achieved by a minimum of two secondary sources. We ask whether the sources are sufficiently reliable so as to be independent, and if so, are there enough sources to establish ‘notability.’ Reliability is assessed through three criteria: (1) the nature of the work; (2) the creator; and (3) the publisher. These three indicia are also assessed in the context of the article’s subject. With respect to notability itself, we look to three different criteria: (1) significance not requiring original research (2) reliability; (3) secondary sourcing; and (4) independence. Significant coverage does not require the article to hold the subject as the main topic of the work. Reliability itself requires verifiable citations; sources may be published works in all forms and media. In additional, musicians fall under notability guidelines specific to their art, but “ failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept.” This discussion has presented standards as absolute, which are not – in fact – so rigid.
  • The context framing this article subject is the DJ music genre, its venues and its supporting institutions. These are hard subjects to document, in part, due to the preference of this community for oral/aural and electronic communications. With respect to reliability, note the two secondary sources providing the basis for notability are a morning newscast and a network awards show; the artist in question was the subject of interview in the newscast and the subject of comment in the awards broadcast. The publishers of both the newscast (FOX) and the awards show (MTV) are sufficiently detached from the subject to meet that criteria’s needs. With respect to notability, see the reliability analysis above. These are secondary sources not produced by the subject and they are independent of him.
  • It may help those who are not immersed in the context of this article to consult other Club DJ articles. You will find them similarly, or less, sourced. Yes, other articles are not precedential, but they do provide benchmarks for the means by which the Wiki community applies its standards. A general survey of just the “A’s” on in the DJ category reveals: Africanism All Stars; Al B. Rich; Mark Anthony (DJ); ATB; Aubrey (producer); Audio Impulsion; Dave Audé, Arnej(documentation includes a My Space link); Ariel (DJ) (documentation is primarily scheduling material); DJ Antoine (accepted, incredibly, on a sole citation to the subject’s own website); Altar (dance music band) (left lingering for a year . .. ); DJ Baby Anne and Andrew K (left lingering for two years . . . ); Steve Angello (left lingering for two and a half years . . . ). These last which have lingered with tags for extended periods of time may well be worthy articles. What you see hear is the challenge of documenting a robust, aural form.
  • This article meets or exceeds the standard in this genre; it is documented by at least two, independent secondary sources, ergo ‘Keep’. Cmagha (talk) 11:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

::Comment. As stated above, the Fox piece is not a Fox News article. Is is self published on a blog are of the Fox News website. It is not written by a Fox News staff reporter. Also, Will Ferrell's admiration of the artist hardly confers notability either by wikipedia's criterium.4meter4 (talk) 12:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

:::Comment I'd consider the Fox piece valid. But as I said, it's the only one. The YouTube snippet of Will Ferrell mentioning him in a long list of "thank you"s for Ferrell's MTV Award (not Shalavoy's) is not, and frankly grasping at straws. Cmagha, it's not difficult to document "this robust aural form" if the DJ in question has recordings with notable labels (Indie or otherwise), has documented charted singles, has won awards, etc. etc. Do you have any evidence of this? Re the appalling articles you've listed as a reason for this one to be kept, they should be put up at AfD too. You really need to read Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions especially, "other stuff exists". I've put a list of past DJ AfDs on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Peter Shalvoy. Take a look at the ones that were kept. I don't think this one meets the grade, and even one of those kept, DJ Miko, is currently very bizarre. Voceditenore (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

:Note Lebowski 666 does not have an affiilation to the fraternity [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FThe_Irving_Literary_Society&action=historysubmit&diff=361298467&oldid=361095962], only to the article's creator, Cmagha. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lebowski_666&oldid=394370359#Unblocked] Voceditenore (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

::Comment. Help me understand why you these people conspirators, and yet this activity is not problematic at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Racepacket#The_Irving_Literary_Society_.28Cornell_University.29 this point,] and at this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Voceditenore#Irving_Society..._again point.] We just check in, read and comment. But this is coordination at these points, isn’t it? It seems all right. Coldplay3332 (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

::: Coldplay3332, you have cross-posted the above from AN/I. You will find the responses to your query [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#A_situation_of_COI.2C_SPAs.2C_vote_stacking.2C_and_tag_teaming there], including a reminder of the advice an adminstrator gave you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coldplay3332&oldid=394379851#Unblocked here]. Voceditenore (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC) updated Voceditenore (talk)

  • Delete - fails to meet guidelines for notability. FOX source misrepresented. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • :Comment - activity by editors with a COI is deeply troubling and closing admin should weight the views of this group of editors accordingly. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. - meets notability, reliability and verifiability as stated above; and I have no COI in this matter. Coldplay3332 (talk) 14:39, 2 November 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.