Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Callum James Greens (2nd 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. The only keep comments are asserting notability rather than actually proving it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Callum James Greens[edit]

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

Self-described "musician, composer and record producer". This article was deleted a year ago per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Callum James Greens. The subject comprehensively failed to pass any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people). It has now been recreated with slightly different text and sources. However, it still comprehensively fails to pass any of the biographical notability criteria including the alternate criteria at Wikipedia:MUSICBIO and Wikipedia:CREATIVE. All sources in the current version are either by the subject himself or referenced to interviews/shout-outs in self-published non-notable blogs. After an extensive search, I can find nothing better—either on this name or his stage name "Calzo Houdini", which he claims to be "better known by". I strongly suggest salting in addition to deletion.

Virtually all of the claims are unverified and unverifiable, and some may be patently false. Per WP:BLP I have removed claim that the subject "suffers from mild Obsessive Compulsive Disorder". It was sourced to the subject's Twitter page: "Wikipedia says I suffer from mild Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Welcome to the internet." The WP article is further highlighted in another of his twitter posts [1] and on his wife's instagram page (complete with a screenshot of the article) [2]. All three were posted shortly after this article was created. [The first 2 posts above have now been deleted from the subject's Twitter page.] Further, I can find no evidence whatsoever, beyond the subject's own assertions that his record label "was signed to Warner Music Group", that he produced records "for" any of the notable artists or groups claimed in the article (his own self-published remixes of their work is not producing for them), or that he composed a track (later allegedly dropped) for the film score of Playing for Keeps. Despite the assertion of membership in the "UK Music Producers Guild since 2009", he does not appear on the organization's members' directory list [3]. Note that even if true, membership is not evidence of notability.

Analysis of sources to follow. Voceditenore (talk) 05:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Updated by Voceditenore (talk) 11:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of sources (Note the numbering applies to the version of the article as of this writing.)

The subject's own website
An "interview" full of self-serving claims on the blog Twist Online (not be confused with Twist magazine), published the same day as the article was created. Note here: "if you want you feature in any of our website section contact us at contact@twistonline.net" [sic]
Another "interview" full of self-serving claims on the blog ElectroWow published in July of this year. Note here: "I Will Promote Your Music In 24 Hours for $5."
The subject's own website
A mention of one of his self-published albums on the blog Like The Sound published in 2011. See the notice at the bottom of the post: "If you would like to appear on Like The Sound, send your video's, photo's and press releases to Addolorata1977@yahoo.co.uk" [sic]
Listing of his self-published EPs on iTunes.

Voceditenore (talk) 08:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 06:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 06:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 06:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 06:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Nothing has changed. No new sources have come to light, and we really don't have anything to go on. If we can get good sources, sure, but... Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Music Producers Guild do not require their members to be listed in the directory. It is my understanding that the article still represents someone of note in the music industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicman wiki (talk • contribs) 09:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC) — Musicman wiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note I have struck the above "Keep". It was not in the original comment by Musicman wiki but was added by the IP 81.168.54.198 who also !voted "Keep" below. See this edit. Voceditenore (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it stands, probably salt - David Gerard (talk) 10:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Salt. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 11:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some sources may be heavily weighted to interviews with the subject but he appears to be notable enough. I would suggest editing the article to remove unverifiable information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.168.54.198 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC) — 81.168.54.198 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Unfortunately, 81.168.54.198, if all information which cannot be verified by a published reliable source which is entirely independent of the subject were to be removed, the article would basically be blank. That is why it has been nominated for deletion. And in future, please refrain from refactoring other editors' comments in this discussion as you did here. Voceditenore (talk) 12:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep DimeRock Records is listed under the Warner Music Group wiki article as DimeRock Registros as it was renamed by WMG. The article warrants insclusion but some information should be omitted as it is not verifiable online. Only in public records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.219.226 (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC) — 82.132.219.226 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Both DimeRock Records and DimeRock Registros appear in List of Warner Music Group labels, which verifies nothing. Not only can Wikipedia not source itself, but they are listed under the Alternative Distribution Alliance section which, as you undoubtedly know, is a Warner-owned marketing service to which independent labels can subscribe and pay for. That does not make them "Warner labels". Even then, neither of those labels nor Registros Dimerock appear in the list of partners on the ADA official website [4]. Although DimeRock may have availed itself of ADA services is the past, according to a press release from Greens's "company" Bangkok Media Group, the group took over DimeRock Records in 2012 [5]. Voceditenore (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - to my shame I patrolled this without realising that the sources were vanity interview sites. No evidence of notability. Blythwood (talk) 17:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like User: Voceditenore is having to do all the heavy lifting here to point out the obvious. A complete lack of independent/non-promotional references. I'm also a bit troubled by SP editors who attempt to hide their tracks by logging in with different IP addresses. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is worrisome; the IPs are obviously the same person; they didn't even bother with presenting different arguments! FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto, the article's creator Musicman wiki. I've marked them all as SPAs. Closing administrators are never fooled by such shenanigans, but the shenanigans and the repeated recreation of the article are why it needs to be salted. This editor has already wasted an enormous amount of editors' time in their efforts to use WP for their personal promotion. Voceditenore (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Possible delete -- I am reluctant to comment on styles of music that do not interest me, but this seems mainly to be sourced to the subject's personal website. Its content may be true, but that does not match WP:RS standards. With the absence of other coverage (apparently even coverage of concerts in the local press), I have to assume he is NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable musician. Hlevy2 (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2016 (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.