375:
by name. As an example of the way the sourcing is inadequate to establish notability, there is a BBC article discussing the Vlog Tag Game, but that article does not mention Alex Day by name. Preceding that is a comment claiming that Alex Day invented this game--but no reliable source is given, instead, only a youtube video (which is self-published and is thus not a reliable source to source a factual claim) is given. Thus, what appears to be a claim of notability really isn't one. Spot-checking the article has given me the impression that the overall state of the article is like this.
481:"Has established a tradition or school in a particular genre" - Whilst Day often claims to have "invented" the "genre" Trock, and some journalists unquestioningly accept this assertion, Day did nothing of the sort, as the article itself acknowledges. The show Doctor Who dates back to the 1960s and people have been writing songs about it for nearly as long. Merely coining a term to describe a collection of songs (which could hardly be accurately described as a "genre" of music) does not equate to establishing a school/tradition.
549:, with only one of them being in English. With regards the "Vlog tag game" issue that 202.83.178.126 raised, it seems to me to be pretty certain that he did in fact "invent" it, but that, as also stated above, it is unfortunately not a "unique, prolific or innovative contribution to a field of entertainment". Similarly, I too feel that the "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart" argument can only really be applied to the
31:
542:
570:
leaving aside the issue of notability (although i agree that this individual is not notable), i think one of the main problems with this article is how it is laid out. by dividing it into sections about this person's "career" in music, television and new media makes it look more like his resumee than
374:
Look carefully through that list. As Doddy Wuid noted above, most of the references are from self-published sources. Can you point to the "extensive coverage" on "renowned" sites? There are some reliable sources in that list, like the BBC site, but that particular source doesn't even mention Alex
546:
475:"Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." - First, his claim to invention of the vlog tag game is dubious; second, how is that game unique or innovative in any way; third, how can "reading the Twilight novel" possibly meet this test?!
571:
an encyclopedic article. i feel that, since this is a biography, the events described should really be written about in chronological order, so, if not deletion, at the very least a complete rewrite is required. tbh, i'm a little surprised that this wasn't deleted per
479:"Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." - Whilst Day was a member of the Chartjackers project, Day did not write, compose or perform on the single "I've Got Nothing". His role was more of a promoter/producer of the single.
246:
I agree that there are problems with the sourcing; however, to demonstrate notability or lack thereof, the current state of the article and referencing is irrelevant. The question is: do adequate sources exist? I find 2 brief mentions in Wired:
477:"Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable." - I'd say the few (not many) published works cited are pretty much all trivial.
256:. I'd change my recommendation however if there were a couple other sources found that were as detailed as that interview. Also as a note, the band seems to get more mentions, without naming this guy by name:
189:
257:
301:: Coverage seems to be sufficient to me. This is far from the average BLP AfD where the person has never been mentioned in the press. He appears to be one of the top Youtubers from the UK. See also
228:. Vast no. of refs but overwhelmingly from subjects own web sites and ones directly associated with him, blogs, other self-published sites, minor or very indirect (or even apparent non-) mentions.
428:
452:: I'm actually familiar this with this guy, and have quite enjoy watching his videos in the past, but I'm afraid that I don't think there is currently enough notability for an article about him.
144:
473:"Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." - Being interviewed on a program hardly qualifies as a "role".
324:
259:-- if there's going to be a page I think it ought to be centered around the band as the band has more coverage and this guy has no coverage except through the band.
183:
40:
253:, but the coverage in those articles does not suggest notability in any way. The most detailed reliable source I could find was this interview:
518:: I think I've made my mind up now! I don't think I've ever seen such a well-thought-out argument from an IP. Shame he can't sign his posts! —
149:
254:
488:
576:
469:: There are several points in the "Notability Matrix" on the 'Talk' article that are debatable at the very least. Let's deal with some:
17:
617:
554:
117:
112:
599:
204:
65:
46:
121:
251:
171:
457:
104:
598:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
492:
64:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
580:
277:: Agree with Cazort in saying that the band is far more notable. Day does not really seem notable himself. —
484:
558:
165:
526:
453:
405:
357:
349:
Didn't see that rather impressive table, it's swayed me. Extensive coverage on several renowned sites. —
285:
82:
248:
233:
161:
584:
562:
533:
510:
496:
461:
443:
412:
384:
364:
339:
314:
292:
268:
237:
197:
86:
211:
439:
58:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
545:, but few (hardly any?) seem to be about this person. A similar search for "nerimon" reveals
519:
398:
380:
350:
278:
264:
78:
572:
225:
221:
229:
553:
article in this instance, since that was the name under which the track was released.
177:
611:
332:
307:
302:
108:
550:
435:
138:
376:
260:
507:
100:
92:
592:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
393:
I see what you mean. I now realise that I actually can't decide
25:
541:. From the Findsources template above, Google News reveals
506:- Per the wonderfully thorough reasoning of 202.83.178.126
429:
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions
134:
130:
126:
196:
210:
68:). No further edits should be made to this page.
602:). No further edits should be made to this page.
325:list of Internet-related deletion discussions
8:
423:
319:
427:: This debate has been included in the
323:: This debate has been included in the
45:For an explanation of the process, see
303:Talk:Alex_Day#Is_Alex_Day_Notable_.3F
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
305:(28 April 2010 talk page post).--
41:deletion review on 2011 August 30
29:
47:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
395:, so I'm just going to abstain
1:
585:15:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
563:22:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
534:18:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
511:18:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
497:04:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
462:16:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
444:19:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
413:17:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
385:17:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
365:19:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
340:19:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
315:19:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
293:17:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
269:17:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
238:16:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
87:00:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
543:many sources for "Alex Day"
634:
397:. Thanks for your help. —
618:Pages at deletion review
595:Please do not modify it.
61:Please do not modify it.
73:The result was
487:comment added by
446:
432:
342:
338:
328:
313:
220:Apparently fails
53:
52:
39:was subject to a
625:
597:
547:just six sources
531:
524:
499:
454:A Thousand Doors
433:
410:
403:
362:
355:
337:
329:
312:
290:
283:
215:
214:
200:
152:
142:
124:
63:
33:
32:
26:
633:
632:
628:
627:
626:
624:
623:
622:
608:
607:
606:
600:deletion review
593:
527:
520:
482:
406:
399:
358:
351:
286:
279:
157:
148:
115:
99:
96:
66:deletion review
59:
37:This discussion
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
631:
629:
621:
620:
610:
609:
605:
604:
588:
587:
565:
536:
513:
489:202.83.178.126
480:
478:
476:
474:
471:
470:
464:
447:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
388:
387:
369:
368:
343:
317:
296:
271:
218:
217:
154:
150:AfD statistics
95:
90:
71:
70:
54:
51:
50:
44:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
630:
619:
616:
615:
613:
603:
601:
596:
590:
589:
586:
582:
578:
577:81.105.179.16
574:
569:
566:
564:
560:
556:
552:
548:
544:
540:
537:
535:
532:
530:
525:
523:
517:
514:
512:
509:
505:
502:
501:
500:
498:
494:
490:
486:
468:
465:
463:
459:
455:
451:
448:
445:
441:
437:
430:
426:
422:
421:
414:
411:
409:
404:
402:
396:
392:
391:
390:
389:
386:
382:
378:
373:
372:
371:
370:
367:
366:
363:
361:
356:
354:
348:
344:
341:
335:
334:
326:
322:
318:
316:
310:
309:
304:
300:
297:
295:
294:
291:
289:
284:
282:
276:
272:
270:
266:
262:
258:
255:
252:
249:
245:
242:
241:
240:
239:
235:
231:
227:
223:
213:
209:
206:
203:
199:
195:
191:
188:
185:
182:
179:
176:
173:
170:
167:
163:
160:
159:Find sources:
155:
151:
146:
140:
136:
132:
128:
123:
119:
114:
110:
106:
102:
98:
97:
94:
91:
89:
88:
84:
80:
76:
69:
67:
62:
56:
55:
48:
42:
38:
35:
28:
27:
19:
594:
591:
567:
551:Chartjackers
538:
528:
521:
515:
503:
472:
466:
449:
424:
407:
400:
394:
359:
352:
346:
345:
331:
320:
306:
298:
287:
280:
274:
273:
243:
219:
207:
201:
193:
186:
180:
174:
168:
158:
74:
72:
60:
57:
36:
483:—Preceding
184:free images
79:Ron Ritzman
555:92.8.40.70
230:Doddy Wuid
436:• Gene93k
612:Category
485:unsigned
333:Milowent
308:Milowent
145:View log
101:Alex Day
93:Alex Day
190:WP refs
178:scholar
118:protect
113:history
573:WP:G11
568:Delete
539:Delete
516:Delete
504:Delete
467:Delete
450:Delete
377:Cazort
275:Delete
261:Cazort
244:Delete
226:WP:ENT
222:WP:GNG
162:Google
122:delete
75:delete
529:Price
508:Panyd
408:Price
360:Price
347:Keep:
288:Price
205:JSTOR
166:books
139:views
131:watch
127:links
16:<
581:talk
559:talk
522:Half
493:talk
458:talk
440:talk
425:Note
401:Half
381:talk
353:Half
321:Note
299:Keep
281:Half
265:talk
234:talk
224:and
198:FENS
172:news
135:logs
109:talk
105:edit
83:talk
434:--
212:TWL
147:•
143:– (
614::
583:)
575:.
561:)
495:)
460:)
442:)
431:.
383:)
336:•
327:.
311:•
267:)
250:,
236:)
192:)
137:|
133:|
129:|
125:|
120:|
116:|
111:|
107:|
85:)
77:.
43:.
579:(
557:(
491:(
456:(
438:(
379:(
330:—
263:(
232:(
216:)
208:·
202:·
194:·
187:·
181:·
175:·
169:·
164:(
156:(
153:)
141:)
103:(
81:(
49:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.