Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Smith Will Teach You Guitar - Wikipedia


Article Images
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. Wifione ....... Leave a message 09:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Smith Will Teach You Guitar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not feel that this an ad campaign local to New York City has garnered enough significant third-party coverage to warrant inclusion here. The coverage is mostly local, and the 2nd reference is a dead link, the 4th reference is to Amazon link to a song parody, which doesn't qualify as a source, and the 5th link only mentions Dan Smith briefly and doesn't offer significant coverage. Whose Your Guy (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure what's wrong with link #5. If you google for dan smith mike myers, it works, but accessing it through wikipedia doesn't. any ideas? Tduk (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I wasn't sure if WP:BIO was what applied here, since the article is more about his marketing campaign, and the coverage/success of it, as well as satires of it (such as on the Daily Show, which is what made me realize enough people knew about this campagin to create an article for it). I don't think Dan Smith is notable at all, but his guitar teaching campaign is. That's why I named it the way I did. I don't know if that changes your opinion or not, but I'm not actually sure which WP: section would apply to it in that case. Tduk (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The only objection seems to be that it covers a regional ad campaign as opposed to a national one. I don't think there is a Wikipedia guideline against articles on topics of only regional notoriety. Furthermore, the New York metropolitan area is a region with a population greater than all but 58 countries (List of countries by population), so even that excuse seems thin. Chris Quackenbush (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Running a TV ad in New York City is insufficient to gain a permanent encyclopedia article. It is far less sufficient to Xerox a flyer and stick it to lamp posts in New York City. We are not here to aid someone's low budget advertising campaign by pretending that their appeal is of encyclopedic notability, just because folks in the one city have seen the flyers. Edison (talk) 04:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • As stated above, this article is not about the fact that he posted fliers. It is about the fact that his fliers were impressively successful, according to two independant news articles I found easily on google, spanning a period of 5 years. It is also about the fact that two clearly notable individuals have thought this individual noteworthy enough to reference in (1) an advertising campaign and (2) on television referencing the upcoming rally in Washington, DC. I am not creating articles for every individual who posts fliers in cities - but I will create one for someone who has been in print and online news articles, and referenced on national television. Tduk (talk) 05:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As stated above, this isn't about someone being notable for being a musician, this is an article about a notable and successful ad campaign that has been covered in print, online, and television media, and which even a very lazy google will give you lots of hits about. Smith's campaigns, as well as his teaching method and biographical info, are particularly covered in depth in the New York Times article and AOL Small Business article. This is a brand new article - under a month - and I think that with time people will contribute even more references to it - but as it stands it does indeed pass notability requirements. Tduk (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It is a new article that needs work, further, I'm not sure it's properly named (perhaps it should be a biography?). In any case, the New York Times is a pretty hefty source, even if it is not a 'hard news' article. It is still independent and heavily devoted to him. -- CáliKewlKid (talk) 09:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. Just because something is parodied doesn't make it notable for an encyclopedia. Also, as much notability can be claimed for this ad it's still very limited geographically to be notable to people from all over the world. man with one red shoe 18:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Tduk - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is puffery piece masquerading as an article. A single human interest story in 2005 and a single interview in 2010 does not pass threshold for notability. Notability for an the Ad campaigned i would expect substantial coverage from at least a dozen stories over these "many years" he has been doing this or at least a Marketing Journal article. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Rather than stating "this is puffery piece", could you explain why it is puffery? There is very little praise about Smith himself (some has recently been added, but you could simply remove that and make it a neutral POV). Your harsh language and harsh, inappropriate tagging of the article make me wonder about COI, which is frustrating as the nominator also seemed to show a vendetta against me, as this seems to have been nominated because of an argument I had with the nominator over speedy deletion policy. I have been trying to WP:AGF, and thank everyone who has made keep votes, but it is hard to keep a clear head with such accusatory tones and gratuitous mistagging (with errors) of the article. I have addressed the typos and left in the tags that were appropriate. Tduk (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added a lot more references, including a link to the Jon Stewart video clip on the official Comedy Central site. Tduk (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All most of which I just Ripped out becuase they were all blogs by non-notables. which Leaves us With, One AOL News, One NY mag, and One NYT article. You have a single mention on the daily show. Two primary sources claiming a song was written by some one that again is doubtful in notability and a cite from Dan Smiths website. I am becoming extremely doubtful of your ability to evaluate sources as one reference i removed was simply a link to another site with a picture of his poster. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
upon closer examination its not even his site but some random site where people are poking fun at him, and accusing him of beating up jews beacuase they are "homo". which is probably a BLP violation just linking to with out trying to use it as source! The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe I don't understand policy, but isn't it a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest to rip out a lot of references you don't agree without even putting them on the discussion page? I'm still not clear on your interpretation of the policy, but none of the sources presented controversial material - in fact, you left IN the material and simply removed the sources, which does not make sense with regards to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policies. I know we are supposed to Wikipedia:Be bold, but doesn't it look a bit odd for you to be behaving in this way? If this is not the place for this discussion, please respond on the Talk page for the article. Tduk (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I didn't state my question clearly enough. If someone votes delete on an article and then removes content from it, is there a relevant policy for that? Tduk (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually that's not quite true. A person could vote "delete" and then remove valid references - and it's possible no one would notice, and then that would influence the final decision. This would be an action in bad faith. There isn't really a similar action someone could perform for _adding_ references - it is much easier for someone to evaluate references that are there than to evaluate things that have been removed... but this isn't the place to discuss that. Tduk (talk) 05:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It actually isn't. If someone adds 'unreliable' references, this would be obvious to anyone who looked at the article and then looked at the references section. If someone removed decent references, this would only be obvious to anyone who looked at the history of the page and checked everything that had been (added and) removed since the AfD was begun, two weeks ago. There _is_ a difference. Tduk (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just wanted to put out that at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion it states that Indeed, if you can address the points raised during the discussion by improving the article, you are encouraged to edit a nominated article (noting in the discussion that you have done so if your edits are significant ones). So, one is not supposed to be making significant, let alone controversial edits, to the article without noting so here. Tduk (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Given the valid opposing viewpoints mentioned post and before the first relisting, I still do not perceive clear consensus here. Hence this second relisting. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 08:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can anybody argue that this will be in any way relevant and notable in one or two years? Notability if very shaky even for present (it's supported by blogs and forum references) and obviously this is unknown for anybody outside NY, but can anybody claim this will be notable for years to come? This seems to me like useless trivia, very localized, which lacks importance and notability. man with one red shoe 15:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many keep votes who seem to have argued exactly that. I don't think they're watching this, though, so if I wanted their opinion on the matter I'd read what they posted as the explanation of the keep votes. Saying "notability is very shaky" seems to be misleading, as there are two actual biographical articles from print notable sources, and a few other mentions as well. He has also had an effect on advertising campaigns for notable media. Tduk (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, is what you are asking people to argue (relevance in the future?) in any way related to notability requirements? Tduk (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how that applies at all. WP:ONEVENT states that Definitionally, an event is an "occurrence of social or personal importance". That is, a single specific act that has taken place with a defined beginning and end, which may last for a second or two, or multiple days.. There is an important distinction between being known for one event, and one thing. Tduk (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is not so much 1 event coverage but lack of coverage at all. We have two sources that cover the subject once with five years in between 5 years apart. Then we have one source thats literally a short paragraph which only got covered because john mayer was not really offering Guitar lessons. Nor am i convinced that daily show is a good source either as they make a jokes about all different topics daily and one trivial mention does not seem to establish notability. Nor does citing a Track in an album as a reference as that WP:OR The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the very fact that we have sources from 2005 and 2010 demonstrates that's it's not something that it's not a case of WP:BLP1E. So we have a subject that's been covered by reliable sources, over the span of 5 years and who was parodied by multiple other notable subjects, amongst them a movie that will surely still exist a couple of years. I think those are enough reasons to keep the article. Sourcing problems can be solved by editing. Regards SoWhy 20:25, 9 October 2010 (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.