504:
stating "none of which are sufficient," that is just flatly untrue. How can the very commercial that used his song, itself, be unreliable, especially in combination with his discography on
Bandcamp, where the song is available in its entirety? Did you fail to follow the link to the commercial that I provided? Are you not aware that under the DMCA the recording artist who created "Gone Gone" would have these sources removed almost instantly if they were not reliable sources, if the music had somehow, no matter how unlikely, been recorded by another artist? In the case of this song, all THREE factors of reliability, the source itself, the publisher of the source, and the publisher of the source are COMPLETELY reliable. Mr. Revell IS notable, and he has every indication of remaining notable as an American singer-songwriter in the future. I am not an editor of this article. I have added links and they have been removed within minutes of my adding them, by whom I do not know. Perhaps John from Chapel Hill can answer that question. He seems to have some sort of personal connection to and/or vendetta against Mr. Revell. I don't have time to keep adding reliable sources just to have them taken down by the likes of you. My law practice keeps me too busy to fool around much on Knowledge. But I do know that calling an artist whose career depends on notoriety "un-notable" might be considered by a court as libel, Mr. 76.248.149.47.
836:
when I would have expected 'fame' or 'notability'. Notoriety is Al Capone, or alleged by hiphoppers and rappers (often trying to live down middle class upbringings). I would also point out that this is a bit of a Catch 22 - if one's career depends on having a
Wikpedia article, then one is certainly not in the position (yet) of qualifying for one. If one's career is such that one is too busy to be worried about it, one probably qualifies. I wish him luck - music is a hard business. And hope to see him back some day with a regular label or at least plenty of reliable independent sources
414:. He is receiving more downloads now than any other indie musician referenced in his own article. He is touring with the nationally known artist "Paleface" and contributing significantly to his next album. As I am sure you are aware, deleting Mr. Revell's entry from your archives could have serious career consequences for a musician on the brink of widespread commercial success in the U.S. This is an action not to be taken lightly.
403:. Though his recorded albums are "self-authored" and are not "Independent of the Subject" these albums, taken along with his recent commercial popularity abroad, his recent attention from media and new fan base, and his significant influence on other anti-folk musicians should be taken as a whole to come to the conclusion that he and his music are notable subjects worthy of a Knowledge page.
418:
that is notable", the HP commercial. He is a member of a national PRO. He is widely cited by his peers, though all citations are not posted here, and someone seems to be systematically deleting the citations that have been posted recently. There are more sources available. All of these criteria make him eligible for the definition of "notable" under
Knowledge's policy guidelines.
406:
Also, though Mr. Revell has yet to attain widespread attention in the United States, he is not 'likely to remain' in this position, as his popularity is growing exponentially due to the recent attention received via the HP commercial. Mr. Revell is a notable and significant
American singer-songwriter
398:
DO NOT DELETE. Mr. Revell has recorded over eight albums, and is a significant contributor to the anti-folk community and genre. Mr. Revell's contributions are significant and notable. Reliable sources can also include the albums he has recorded as original sources. They are available in full version
331:
per nom. Stripped-down version of the fuller autobiography, with little in the way of sources to support notability. The Lewis interviews note Mr. Revell as an admired musician, but these are passing mentions in interviews from sources of uncertain reliability, and Mr. Lewis' claim to notability, as
417:
It would disserve the
Knowledge community to delete the page of such a significant and notable American singer-songwriter. He is, under the Knowledge guidelines for notability of music, a "prominent representative of a notable style of music", anti-folk. He has "performed music for a work of media
470:
is immaterial--Knowledge is not here to advance a career (Parenthetically, a
Knowledge biography generally has very little impact on career trajectory, and attempts to 'guilt' editors into keeping an article have even less impact on the Knowledge community). None of the removed citations came from
835:
He's got a track on a Rough Trade compilation and on an ad - that's good but not enough. Otherwise, having your catalogue at
Bandcamp means nothing more than having your book at Amazon. It means 'this exists'. Otherwise, Ms Cook has (unfortunately) said it all. Except for referring to 'notoriety'
689:
I hope you're beginning to understand, although I fear it may be too late, since you're on the verge of getting yourself permanently banned from
Knowledge for making legal threats. You see, that also goes against our policies. You claim to be a law-school graduate and an attorney, so you should
305:
blog are of moderate (but not strong) reliability for BLP content; they has exactly one passing mention of the subject (the articles simply aren't about him) and exactly zero in-depth coverage of the subject in sources that are actually reliable. This subject has been an associate of
Paleface, so
503:
You did not address his thus far commercial success, which DOES fit under the
Knowledge definition of notable. The reasons stated in my last paragraph of my first comment are all, independently, reasons given in WP:MUSIC for allowing a notable music bio. This reasoning cannot just be ignored by
750:
Thus, it cannot be used to argue that he is notable. What is it about? A Hewlett-Packard inkjet printer! Thus, even if the video were permitted here, it could be used only to argue that inkjet printing is notable. Which, in fact, it is, as seen from the existence of the following article:
671:
thoroughly, Amanda. Okay, so this guy has a song in part of a Hewlett-Packard commercial for an ink-jet printer? That's your argument for musical notability??? LOL. It's a mighty small argument, but okay, I'll engage you in it. Give us the sources--where are the
614:. No evidence of notability has been provided. No workups on himself or his work have been shown to exist in reliable sources, and his indie status makes these unlikely to exist. Really, anyone who is described by his own people as being
467:
As I am sure you are aware, deleting Mr. Revell's entry from your archives could have serious career consequences for a musician on the brink of widespread commercial success in the U.S. This is an action not to be taken lightly
791:. I know that all of the policies being thrown at you here in the AfD and on your talk page will make from some extensive, heavy, and dry reading, but you claim to be legally trained, so it should be a cinch for you.
487:
credible sources, I'd suggest you add them, rather than making claims that no editors have yet been able to substantiate. If and when such sources become available, a deleted article may be resubmitted. Thanks,
684:
that tell us how important, significant and influential it is? Oh--there aren't any?? Well guess what, Amanda, that means that, according to official Knowledge policies, this Revell guy is just not notable.
166:
252:
both of these articles corroborate that Grey is a contemporary of these artists, which is all the article ever said in the first place. also here is a link to the album produced by Grey on Ramseur Records:
724:. AmandaBCook actually does herself a disservice. Whether intentionally or not, in her 'DO NOT DELETE' post she has in fact spelled out all the reasons why this article lacks notability.
379:
213:
magazine is alone doesn't seem convincing of notability. Media coverage is exceedingly local and lends even less to an encyclopedic biography. The subject also doesn't approach
119:
160:
221:
doesn't give way to much coverage of this individual beyond passing mention, credits, and liner notes. Note, this is a somewhat scrubbed version of an
257:
If the other less notable records should be removed, that is a valid case, but the only problem here seems that there weren't enough citations.
126:
410:
Grey Revell's contribution to American Songwriting is significant. His recent placement in the HP commercial is a significant achievement,
755:. Are you beginning to understand now, Amanda? Are you still going to sue us when you're the one who confused this guy with a printer?
773:
569:
552:
489:
333:
298:
249:
539:
520:
453:
434:
647:
592:
543:
457:
283:
279:
92:
87:
17:
96:
181:
148:
79:
868:
40:
142:
712:
707:- No assertion of notability (just "he moved here and did that") + No secondary sources = Soon, no article.
556:
493:
337:
294:
275:
262:
864:
623:
535:
516:
449:
430:
138:
57:
36:
849:
827:
800:
777:
764:
733:
716:
699:
659:
627:
604:
573:
560:
524:
497:
438:
391:
370:
341:
319:
266:
234:
61:
811:
531:
512:
445:
426:
83:
652:
597:
508:
422:
271:
258:
250:
http://mancunianmatters.co.uk/content/21101485-first-lastwith-new-york-anti-folk-star-jeffrey-lewis
188:
174:
770:
708:
566:
483:
become notable. As yet there is no evidence that "he is widely cited by his peers." If there are
472:
411:
214:
75:
67:
332:
evidenced at his Wiki article, could use further references as well...but that's another story.
479:; Knowledge does not include articles based on the possibility or even likelihood that someone
845:
823:
788:
729:
476:
387:
218:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
863:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
254:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
796:
760:
695:
619:
366:
202:
53:
752:
642:
587:
581:
350:
315:
230:
154:
687:
You see, Knowledge verifiability is all about secondary sourcing, not primary sourcing.
222:
206:
358:
354:
241:
198:
310:. None of this is negotiable: being a contemporary of other artists is not notable.
841:
837:
819:
725:
668:
636:
383:
307:
113:
792:
756:
691:
362:
744:
YouTube is never a reliable source. In any case, the video Amanda offered is
565:
Editor is now indef'd until or if they rescind and disavow the legal threat. ←
311:
226:
302:
245:
690:
know by now how to read and interpret policy. Thank you for your time.
551:
Given the last comment, this is now off to the incidents noticeboard.
635:- Notability has not been asserted, with little (if I can find any)
678:
about that song being partially in the commercial? Where are the
400:
857:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
785:"though Mr. Revell has yet to attain widespread attention . . ."
740:
769:
I wouldn't say "never", but it would be a pretty short list. ←
465:
None of which are sufficient reasons for keeping the article.
412:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O91lPSKfgpk&feature=relmfu
255:
http://paleface.bandcamp.com/album/the-show-is-on-the-road
380:
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions
244:
that were removed, for no apparent reason they're here:
815:
739:
One of the spambots stripped out the YouTube link, per
109:
105:
101:
665:
Amanda doesn't understand how reliable sourcing works.
173:
584:. Your law practice is no use here on Knowledge.
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
871:). No further edits should be made to this page.
297:wouldn't do anything to save this article. The
187:
8:
378:Note: This debate has been included in the
377:
246:http://www.trakmarx.com/2001_02/lewis.htm
219:association with more notable ensembles
306:that's not independent coverage. See
7:
217:for much the same reason. Also, his
24:
618:is almost certainly non-notable.
240:there were some interviews with
407:and deserves a Knowledge page.
401:http://greyrevell.bandcamp.com/
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
197:This subject appears not meet
1:
850:20:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
828:06:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
818:for making legal threats.
801:03:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
778:05:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
765:03:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
734:03:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
717:03:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
700:02:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
660:02:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
628:02:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
605:02:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
580:AmandaBCook, you gotta read
574:05:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
561:02:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
525:00:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
498:20:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
439:16:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
392:18:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
62:04:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
371:22:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
342:13:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
320:16:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
267:13:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
235:04:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
888:
616:"on the brink of success"
860:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
471:reliable sources, per
816:indefinately blocked
544:few or no other edits
458:few or no other edits
284:few or no other edits
787:Amanda, please read
546:outside this topic.
460:outside this topic.
286:outside this topic.
475:. Also please read
48:The result was
747:not about Revell.
547:
528:
511:comment added by
461:
442:
425:comment added by
394:
287:
879:
862:
812:User:AmandaBCook
657:
655:
650:
645:
602:
600:
595:
590:
529:
527:
505:
443:
441:
419:
299:mancunianmatters
295:WP:LOTSOFSOURCES
269:
192:
191:
177:
129:
117:
99:
34:
887:
886:
882:
881:
880:
878:
877:
876:
875:
869:deletion review
858:
820:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
753:Inkjet printing
726:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
653:
648:
643:
641:
598:
593:
588:
586:
506:
420:
209:in non-notable
134:
125:
90:
74:
71:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
885:
883:
874:
873:
853:
852:
830:
804:
803:
782:
781:
780:
736:
719:
702:
662:
630:
608:
607:
578:
577:
576:
501:
500:
396:
395:
374:
373:
344:
325:
324:
323:
322:
289:
288:
195:
194:
131:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
884:
872:
870:
866:
861:
855:
854:
851:
847:
843:
839:
834:
831:
829:
825:
821:
817:
813:
809:
806:
805:
802:
798:
794:
790:
786:
783:
779:
775:
772:
771:Baseball Bugs
768:
767:
766:
762:
758:
754:
749:
748:
743:
741:
737:
735:
731:
727:
723:
720:
718:
714:
710:
709:Beyond My Ken
706:
703:
701:
697:
693:
688:
683:
682:
677:
676:
670:
666:
663:
661:
658:
656:
651:
646:
638:
634:
631:
629:
625:
621:
617:
613:
610:
609:
606:
603:
601:
596:
591:
583:
579:
575:
571:
568:
567:Baseball Bugs
564:
563:
562:
558:
554:
553:76.248.149.47
550:
549:
548:
545:
541:
537:
533:
526:
522:
518:
514:
510:
499:
495:
491:
490:76.248.149.47
486:
482:
478:
474:
469:
464:
463:
462:
459:
455:
451:
447:
440:
436:
432:
428:
424:
415:
413:
408:
404:
402:
393:
389:
385:
381:
376:
375:
372:
368:
364:
360:
356:
352:
349:per nom, per
348:
345:
343:
339:
335:
334:76.248.149.47
330:
327:
326:
321:
317:
313:
309:
304:
303:Jeffrey Lewis
300:
296:
293:
292:
291:
290:
285:
281:
277:
273:
268:
264:
260:
256:
251:
247:
243:
242:Jeffrey Lewis
239:
238:
237:
236:
232:
228:
224:
223:autobiography
220:
216:
212:
208:
204:
200:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
132:
128:
124:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
859:
856:
832:
807:
784:
746:
745:
738:
721:
704:
686:
680:
679:
674:
673:
667:Please read
664:
640:
632:
615:
611:
585:
507:— Preceding
502:
484:
480:
466:
421:— Preceding
416:
409:
405:
397:
346:
328:
301:website and
210:
196:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
122:
49:
47:
31:
28:
620:Someguy1221
542:) has made
532:AmandaBCook
513:AmandaBCook
473:WP:RELIABLE
456:) has made
446:AmandaBCook
427:AmandaBCook
282:) has made
215:WP:MUSICBIO
161:free images
76:Grey Revell
68:Grey Revell
54:Mark Arsten
789:WP:CRYSTAL
477:WP:CRYSTAL
211:Urban Folk
865:talk page
272:Astrocrow
259:Astrocrow
203:WP:ANYBIO
37:talk page
867:or in a
681:ARTICLES
675:ARTICLES
582:WP:LEGAL
540:contribs
521:contribs
509:unsigned
454:contribs
435:contribs
423:unsigned
351:WP:MUSIC
280:contribs
120:View log
39:or in a
842:Peridon
774:carrots
570:carrots
384:Frankie
361:, etc.
167:WP refs
155:scholar
93:protect
88:history
833:Delete
793:Qworty
757:Qworty
722:Delete
705:Delete
692:Qworty
633:Delete
612:Delete
399:here:
363:Qworty
359:WP:BIO
355:WP:GNG
347:Delete
329:Delete
207:review
205:. The
199:WP:GNG
139:Google
97:delete
50:delete
838:WP:RS
669:WP:RS
644:Zappa
637:WP:RS
589:Zappa
312:JFHJr
308:WP:42
227:JFHJr
182:JSTOR
143:books
127:Stats
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
846:talk
824:talk
808:Note
797:talk
761:talk
730:talk
713:talk
696:talk
654:Mati
624:talk
599:Mati
557:talk
536:talk
517:talk
494:talk
450:talk
431:talk
388:talk
382:. —
367:talk
338:talk
276:talk
263:talk
248:and
175:FENS
149:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
814:is
485:any
481:may
201:or
189:TWL
118:– (
848:)
840:.
826:)
810::
799:)
776:→
763:)
732:)
715:)
698:)
639:.
626:)
572:→
559:)
538:•
530:—
523:)
519:•
496:)
452:•
444:—
437:)
433:•
390:)
369:)
357:,
353:,
340:)
318:)
278:•
270:—
265:)
233:)
225:.
169:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
52:.
844:(
822:(
795:(
759:(
742:.
728:(
711:(
694:(
649:O
622:(
594:O
555:(
534:(
515:(
492:(
448:(
429:(
386:(
365:(
336:(
316:㊟
314:(
274:(
261:(
231:㊟
229:(
193:)
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
133:(
130:)
123:·
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.