Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Brooks
- 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. MBisanz talk 23:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Content moved to Joe Brooks (singer). Gwen Gale (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Joe Brooks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Fails to establish notability. The main claim to fame seems to be popularity on Myspace. There are local radio/press promotional interviews but that seems to be all. His own YouTube page describes him as "Just another bedroom musician" which seems to be a fair summary. Previous attempts at establishing articles - Joe Brooks (Singer) and Joe Brooks (Pop singer) have been deleted. Lame Name (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response
According to the notability guidelines listed under music, an artist is notable if they meet ANY of the criteria listed. Joe Brooks meets two criteria points:
- 1) It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.
- As linked in the references section, Joe Brooks has been on BBC radio, interviewed for the Birmingham Mail, AND Magazine, and other sources.
- 4) Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.
- Some of the articles referenced point to his sold out UK Tour from February/March 2009.
Those points alone meet the guidelines set by wikipedia for notability.
As for the "bedroom musician claim," there is no reference to it in the main article. Therefore any reference to it by the user who marked this article for deletion is irrelevant.
The user that market this for deletion says that his only claim to fame is myspace popularity. However, myspace has over 5 million bands/artists [1]. So the fact that Joe Brooks is listed as often listed as the number one artist means that he is very notable. Myspace might not be traditional media yet, but as digital downloads and streams surpass physical sales, Myspace has become more and more important [2]. Evilkarrot (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References
[edit]- ^ Catching Up with Myspace Music, CNet, March 11, 2009
- ^ CD Sales Drop, Digital Downloads on the Rise, ZDNet, March 17, 2009
- Keep Notable based on coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 14:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:MUSIC. The above are articles about digital downloads on Myspace, and don't represent substantial coverage of Brooks himself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The references above are just to illustrate that Myspace and digital downloads are a force in the industry. This is in response the question about whether myspace is relevant posed by the original user who marked this article for deletion. 75.56.210.213 (talk) 06:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:The Myspace connection is irrelevant without substantial coverage elsewhere as was the case with, for example, Lily Allen. Lame Name (talk) 09:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The references above are just to illustrate that Myspace and digital downloads are a force in the industry. This is in response the question about whether myspace is relevant posed by the original user who marked this article for deletion. 75.56.210.213 (talk) 06:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: trivial coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 05:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relunctantly Keep, only because there are a few sources that I see to be nontrivial. But puhleas. The Myspace stuff is completely non-notable. The only thing that proves is that he is good at self-promoting himself. Period. Its embarrasing. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2009 (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.