Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Billups

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Spartaz Humbug! 08:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Billups

[edit]
Andy Billups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Procedural: fixing nomination for another editor who didn't understand the procedure. The essence of his nomination was "This Article cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources since the sources are either self-promoting websites or links to obscure publications such as a 6 year old journal that does not even refer to Andy Billups ... this Article fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth) not least of all as there is nothing notable whatsoever. Its only function is to spam Wikipedia with self promotion/advertising of a person who is not notable." Black Kite 13:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


There is no mention of 'andy Billups' in any reputable music directory which includes Amazon, the BBC, itunes or any other KNOWN or notable directory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yiwentang (talk • contribs) 14:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Initially I thought this article had a deserved status, but on reflection I'd suggest its probably best to merge the verifiable sections into The Hamsters article. A few minutes searching provides a series of links only to material about the band, and not the subject. I realise the music press isn't readily available online, but it shouldn't be difficult for anyone with an interest to insert citations to other published offline sources; if it is, then as per WP:BLP I'd suggest those unreferenced sections should go. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Point of order. I am not the subject of this article, I merely created and wrote it. I have no connection to the band other than as a fan (regardless of what the below indef'd editor suggests). --WebHamster 22:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem, look at the date of that diff, and then look at the tense of my statement. Duh! --WebHamster 17:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It really stretches credibility to say you have no connection when you were their webmaster.. even if you no longer are. Since you're unwilling or unable to acknowledge your conflict of interest, you really ought to just stay out of the AFD. Wikipedia is no place for people who are deliberately misleading. Friday (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I used to work for the RAC and I have no connection to them either. I had a job as webmaster, I no longer do. I have email contact, something I've never denied, but that's it. I should also point out that I haven't edited that article for months until Yiwentag went on his/her troll-based disruption after the 1 year block (for exactly the same disruption) was up. There is no CoI here. I am just in a position of being able to check facts with them (something anyone with email access can equally do), that's all. If I was trying to hide the fact I wouldn't have admitted it 2 years ago now would I? Either way, this is irrelevant to this discussion and just plays into the disruption Yiwentang is trying to achieve. --WebHamster 19:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for assuming you were the article subject. As Yiwentang called you "andy" in my second diff above, and as the article is called Andy, I just assumed. However, I am concerned about your post just above me here. Is there not a WP:OR issue in you saying you're still in contact for fact checking? I learned this a while back that even with a 1-on-1 interview with an article subject, the community frowns and pouts on using info obtained from such an interview in an article because it's "considered original research and not reliably or verifiably sourced" - even though I offered to upload audio recordings of the interview. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 20:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yiwentang says a lot of things, the majority being out and out lies in order to piss me about. As for the original research, yes I know the rules, I've been around in one form or another since 2003. I have not used anything even remotely contentious about the band that has come directly from them. In my understanding of the phrase "fact checking" it means to check facts that are already written about, not using direct quotes to write new facts. That wouldn't be fact checking, that would be fact creating would it not? I have used communications with the band to find out what is right and what is wrong then removed information that is wrong. Any contentious, or at least facts I considered may be contentious, facts have been referenced where possible. The problem with this band's provenance and demographic is not net based. It's in Olde Worlde paper publications. Which although I know the references exist I can't always track down. If I could they would be in the article. Does that answer your concerns? Incidentally I should point out that one of the IP editors on the Andy Billups article was Billups himself. I then edited what he had written to make it more in line with WP policy. --WebHamster 23:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to this Webhamster is now claiming to be Andy Billups [[3]].Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to the above statement you really don't have a fucking clue how this place works do you? Duh! --WebHamster 16:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The perhaps you would care to explain, after all this does seem to be a user page for user webhamster/andy billups.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't care to explain, but if you look on your own talk page you may get a clue {Shakes head. Unbelievable.}. Meanwhile may I suggest looking at WP:OUTING before you try to commit any more faux pas. --WebHamster 16:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So its a sandbox, then why not just have said so, I therfore appoligise for my mistake. As to WP:OUTING as i did not post the information it would not have been outing (you would have posted it).Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'comment'Is it possible to discuss purely the article without reference to any dispute or abusive dialogue that was started as a means of sidetracking the main issue?

Anyone can see that the few sources the article has are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no editorial oversight. They include a website created by the band themselves and publications that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yiwentang (talk • contribs) 15:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep - Was the subject of an entire article about focal dystonia, is currently on regular playlist rotation on BBC radio. Most 3rd party sources are under his pseudonym and are on offline media, bass player magazines and the ilk. As I'm not a bass player I don't buy the mags and as he lives at the other end of the country I'm not able to get free access to his stock of back issues or anyone else's for that matter. Not everything in life has an online link and this musician, and the band he's in, is of the generation and music style that attracts a demographic with less than stellar computer/internet interests. Accordingly it takes longer to track down the sources. --WebHamster 22:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No verifable appearances on any TV channel, no singles/albums in any chart whatsoever and a false reference to my magazine !!! 86.168.226.64 (talk) 11:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC) (indented, known sock)[reply]
With the help of someone else we have clarified that the reference to Blueprint magazine is in fact a link to a blog created by "gdb@psychology.nottingham.ac.uk". Care to comment? As for yiwentang she is probably the anonymous person who tipped us off that our name was being abused in order to get work for a pub band - the sort that will ring up a pub in East Preston and say "yeah we're mentioned in wikipedia" just to get a bit of work. What a bunch of losers.86.168.226.64 (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, yet again troll. The band article does not refer in any way to the Blues In Britain magazine. It refers to a dead-tree magazine called Blueprint that is no longer published. --WebHamster 17:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked 86.168.226.64 for engaging in personal attacks("What a bunch of losers"), I also strongly suspect that this is in fact Yiwentang evading his/her indef block. I hope this will allow this discussion to continue without name-calling. Chillum 00:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:V and WP:COS - the whole basis of the article seems to be a telephone conversation between its author and one of the band members. Also WP:Vthe reference in its mother article is unverifiable due to the magazine being "no longer published" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliviateacher (talk • contribs) 12:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of independent discussion of the subject in reliable, verifiable sources. WebHamster's previous or current connections are not very relevant here--surely we can judge the article on its merits which, I'm sad to say, are few. For instance, the New Faces thing happens before Billups joins Whisky Mac (an otherwise non-notable band, apparently), two of the other references are discographies (but I don't doubt that the article is truthful), the dystonia note is not in a reliable source and of questionable relevance anyway (the latter also applies to the Faith endorsement), and the Round the Horne reference adds no notability to the subject. The airplay, the on-air progress report--none of that adds up to notability. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 of the sources seem to be about things other then Mr Billups. One appears to be brocken.Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete a search of the local papers web site (Southend) produced the following httphttp://www.echo-news.co.uk/search/?search=Andy+Billups This does not tell me he is even notable in Southend, at least not enough for him to be reported about. just for comparison http://www.echo-news.co.uk/search/?search=helen+mirren thus they do report on notable people in (or from) the area.Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't very good at this are you? Billups doesn't live in Southend and hasn't done since the early 90s. So why would you expect to see him in the Southend press under his real name? YOu either haven't read the article or you are unable to work out simple and logical things like this. I suspect the latter given your faux pas from yesterday. --WebHamster 14:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Becasue he plays in a Southend based band? Nor under his stage name http://www.echo-news.co.uk/search/?search=Ms+Zsa+Zsa+Poltergeist. Odd that he plays in a Southend based band but does not live there. Moreover the articel does say he no longer lives in Southend.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So are you looking for band associations or him? Like I said he doesn't live in Southend and hasn't done for a long while. And no it's not very odd at all, why would it be? Your attempts at doing your best to get rid of the article (and to get me warned) are getting more and more tenuous. It's looking likely that the article is going to be deleted anyway so why bother? Or are you another one of those stalkers that seem to end up following me around? And yes I did notice you trying to fan the flames that I may be using sockpuppets to disrupt things. If you're so concerned and obviously have time on your hands, then why don't you learn how to produce a sockpuppet report and then report me. It's always cool to look silly in more than one place on WP. But back to Billups, you may have more luck using "zsa zsa" and dropping the "poltergeist". It's rarely used these days. And for your homework, let's see if you can find the musician I do actually work for as you are obviously interested in who I am and in trying to out me. --WebHamster 15:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said the articel makes no mention of him no longer living in Southend its very hard to check facts you do not have. Za Za does bring up one mention from a year ago, so at least wew do have a local source now, but just one source about the band, not excatly heavy coverage an artciel about the band not him. As to stalking Well you have edited far more pages then I have visted oe edited. Moreover on the talk page you link to I make it clear that I expresswed doubdt it was you. In fact I make mention of the fact you had a right to be informed about an incident that I was not part of, terrible stalking that. I have no interest in you or who you work for, but I do have an interest in trying to make this project work, and it seems that you may be the subject (and were not informed) of a black sock attack. If you were not then something else is clearly goning on, both of which were the concearns I asked about dealing with.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check the history of the article. Some bright soul decided to delete the info about his current location as not being "relevant". It looks like it was relevant after all, who'd have thought it eh? As for the stalking/sock puppet business, well it was already designated as resolved at ANI. So why would an uninvolved neophyte editor like yourself want to bring the matter up unsolicited on a non-admin's user page? Strikes me as a way of making trouble for the alleged sockpuppet. Not to mention of course the accusation of my identity above. I suggest you keep your nose out of my business as your incompetent atttempts will get you into trouble and get me pissed off.--WebHamster 23:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it would appear that his curretn locatio is relevant, given the degree to which he has moved about. I notice though that it was not sourced. As to pother matters, I shall refrn from reply as this is about Mr Billups and not you. If you wish I shall reply on your talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 10 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andy_Billups&oldid=1136114005"