Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle McMahon

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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle McMahon

[edit]
Kyle McMahon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage from independent media, no national record release or chart hit as either writer or singer, back up dancer only. Only claim to fame seems to be a HuffPo blog and being featured in a few Oprah episodes. Wkharrisjr (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has had 2 national / international record releases, 4 Oprah shows, airplay on MTV, a documentary on ESPN as manager for pro golfer and was a Rock The Vote artist. Not sure how that doesn't constitute significant coverage from independent media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.183.74 (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Sorry, was not logged in. FeerTheDeer[reply]
  • keep Subject has enough credible sources listed, this article has more credible sources listed than many subjects we have which aren't marked for deletion. MTV.com has a bio page on the artist, which should be credible enough for inclusion. Subject also was guest on 4 episodes of an internationally broadcast television show. Subject is a signed recording artist with the second largest record label in the world. These are all more than sufficient for inclusion. Wikipedias citation search shows over 10,000 articles for search parameter "Kyle McMahon" (or) "K.mac" (or) "Kyle Mac" + Music. Do agree that sports figure Kyle McMahon should also be researched to see if he is currently active enough for inclusion for a page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.88.149(talk)
  • Keep Has had 2 national / international record releases, 4 Oprah shows, airplay on MTV, a documentary on ESPN as manager for pro golfer and was a Rock The Vote artist. Not sure how that doesn't constitute significant coverage from independent media. FeerTheDeer FeerTheDeer (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject has plenty of sources written about him including MTV, ESPN, broadcast TV, Washington Times, etc. Subject is significant enough to appear here. Subject also trended on Twitter during the last Oprah broadcast he appeared on. Page views for this article show over 100 from day it was published so obviously there is enough interest in this page and will continue to grow when subjects album comes out. We have plenty of subjects with MUCH less fame than this and not nearly as many citations and we've kept them. Original deleter was too quick on the trigger with this one. Carmellamusicfan (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)— Carmellamusicfan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Taylor, I'm not sure if you saw, where I, FeerTheDeer, IMMEDIATELY logged in & said, "Sorry was not logged in" right next to my comment (I did that so everyone could see I was being honest in my mistake). And yes, I have notified the other 7 people who have worked on this article, with the help of the Wikipedia Live Chat Editors, so they know this is up for debate for deletion. I assume all of them will come here and log in / create an account and give their vote. You seem to have some sort of strange vendetta. Is this a case of Bias ? FeerTheDeer (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notifying other creators of the article is perfectly acceptable - thanks for letting us know you did that, though, as multiple new accounts or IPs commenting on a deletion discussion makes us wonder if someone is engaging in sockpuppeting. Please be aware, however, that deletion discussions are generally decided on the strength of arguments presented, not on the number of users commenting. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep User Taylor Tescott, the person who marked for deletion obviously did not read the article. Nowhere does it state he's a backup dancer and it does state he's had two releases in the US and abroad. Going by your logic Taylor, we'll have to mark your article on Owens for deletion, after all, it only lists one source and your subject does not meet the minimum requirements for notability set by Wikipedia. Since you seem to think that your article with one source deserves to be on here, by someone who has ZERO Google news mentions about him, why wouldn't you vote to keep this young man on here, with thousands of results from various credible sources like MTV, Oprah.com, ESPN, multiple radio, available on iTunes and Amazon.com etc? I did take the liberty to look at the IP addresses. One is from Philadelphia, one from NJ, and one from Delaware, which, by definition means its not socking. Don't be so hypocritical voting to delete this with 43 listed sources when keeping yours with one listed source OprahPhan (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)— OprahPhan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Here are some sources, Taylor.

1. MTV Artist Bio Page - K.Mac - This shows artist is an active MTV artist & lists him with 111/Warner Brothers Records, as well as gives a link to download a song and has a music video they're airing on their networks that is available for OnDemand streaming on their site. 2. Oprah.com - Shows one of his appearances on Oprah's Lifeclass on OWN: The Oprah Winfrey Network, which is available in the US, Canada, UK, etc. 3. Music Video - Music Video has almost 200,000 views. Of those, 100,000 of them were in the first month of release. You can check this by clicking on statistics.

As I stated previously, we worked extensively with the editors in the Wikipedia Live Help room for days before we submitted this. Those editors helped us craft it into what it is, fix some of our sources, fix some of our formatting, etc. Once the editors in the Live Chat approved of what we had done, we submitted it for approval for publishing. It was reviewed and accepted by two editors. We planned on continuing to add to it and make it better as we went on. Further Taylor, I agree with OprahPhan. Your own article that you submitted lists ONE source, yet you're arguing someone with 43 sources that has been on national TV 4 times in the last few months should not be on here? Could you explain that? FeerTheDeer (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Taylor, right in the article you posted, it states, "In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia." So thank you for proving my point with that article you posted. Based on your believing that Owen Marks is significant enough with one source, you are clearly stating that Kyle McMahon is significant enough with 43 sources. If a film editor with a few hundred Google Citation Bot results is notable enough, surely a major label recording artist with 4 Oprah episodes under his belt and thousands of Google Citation Bot results is significant enough. The sources have been provided above, there are 43 other sources listed on the page, including MTV, ESPN, TV Guide, Golf Channel, etc. I'm not sure what else you'd be looking for. Is this a gigantic celebrity, no. Is this someone young starting out a career that's gained a big following (50,000 plus fans through his social media) in a couple of years and had a Tina Turner album credit and currently is being played on MTV, yes! FeerTheDeer (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • You just missed the point completely. If you truly believe Owen Marks is not notable, nominate him for deletion instead of using said article as a leverage for why this article should be kept. Provide some non-primary and reliable sources, and I will reconsider my vote. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources to indicate this artist has met any of the requirements of WP:MUSIC. His contract with Warner cannot be verified from a reliable source (the two sources provided are 1) a blog; and 2) a list of his ASCAP credits which do not mention Warner at all). Even if the contract could be reliably verified, it was a development contract, meaning he never actually released a major album with Warner. His appearances on Oprah's Lifeclass do not appear to rise to the level of real notability -- any more than the guests on any other daytime talk show would be notable. As for his "MTV" status: the article states that he "joined MTV for Rock the Vote", whatever that means (perhaps he appeared at an MTV Rock the Vote event?), but this fact cannot be verified because the citation points to a page that has nothing to do with McMahon. His other MTV connections are that he has set up an artist page at MTV, which is somewhat akin to opening a YouTube account. McMahon's association with 111 Records is almost a giveaway that he hasn't made it yet: the Wikipedia article about this label states: One Eleven Records is an Orlando-based record label concentrating on young up-and-coming rock bands. All in all, McMahon appears to be a busy man, and perhaps a laudable man, but not a notable man. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


WikiDan61 & Taylor - on our very own 111 Records page, it clearly states that 111 Records is distributed by Warner Brothers Records. Discogs.com verifies that 111 Records is a subsidiary of Warner Music Group's Warner Brothers Records. Further verified at OVguide.com, particularly "They have a distribution deal with Warner Bros. Records". This means McMahon's album would come out through Warner Brothers Records. Rock The Vote has a free concert in each state during an election cycle to drive voter registration.

Further, notable people like Veronica De La Cruz have written about him and his work on fatherlessness in America on places like HuffPo. He is even listed a celebrity sponsor for StandUpManUp.com

The Washington Times mentions the Golf Channel Documentary noting that McMahon managed the professional golfer.

In regards to MTV, these are not user accounts, the pages with green checkmarks are artist pages curated by MTV. Further, the page notes that the video is currently airing on their channels.

In regards to the ASCAP list, did you see the writers listed as co-writers with McMahon? These are major industry leaders who regularly work with artists like Madonna, Cher, Seal, Beyonce, Justin Timberlake, etc. This can all be verified by clicking on their name on the ASCAP site.

The Tina Turner album he produced for and contributed vocals for was released around in the US, Canada, the UK, Japan, etc. This is verified at discogs.com, which also lists McMahon on 3 other national / international releases in varying roles.

In regards to criteria for WP:MUSIC, he meets multiple items on the criteria list including #1 - has been subject of multiple works appearing in sources that are reliable... #10 notable compilation album, #11 rotation nationally my major radio / music television network. #12 Has been featured subject across national radio or TV network. As only one is required, he meets four, making McMahon notable, by our standards.

Also, he is eligible for notability under Creative professionals, #1 Widley cited by peers or successors" See above re: Veronica De La Cruz, Rob Lowe, Monte Pittman, etc. all of whom are creative peers with their very own wiki pages. #3 Creating or co-creating a significant or well known work,... or of reviews. As posted, his YouTube music video has almost 200,000 views, making it a "well known work".

He is also eligible for notability under Entertainers #2 Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. McMahon has 15,000 Twitter followers, 21,000 Instagram followers, 15,000 MySpace followers, etc. This would be considered a large fan base or a significant cult following, again, making him eligible for notability. FeerTheDeer (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


FeerTheDeer (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I'll explain through the following guidelines:
-WP:GNG: All mentions found in independent reliable sources (including those within the article's references such as the pieces on ESPN, Delaware Today, and Washington Times) contain passing or brief - not significant - coverage.
-WP:MUSIC: Criterion #1 is basically the "significant coverage" standard (see above). As for the other criteria, from what I can tell based on credits/directories/profiles listed at Allmusic/Discogs/MTV/Soundlift/last.fm, plus sites with an apparent affiliation with the subject (IceCoday, IAC Music, The Spark), I do not see anything online to indicate that this guideline is met.
-WP:CREATIVE: I suppose the "widely cited" note in criterion #1 can be interpretation but a retweet and the occasional namedrop does not seem sufficient. #2 and #4 do not apply; nor does #3 as the subject's work has not been the subject of a book, film, or multiple independent articles/reviews.
-WP:ENT: #1 and #3 do not apply, and #2 is generally proven not by YouTube subscribers or Twitter followers but by independent coverage indicating the person has a "large fan base" or "cult following".

The common thread here is an apparent lack of significant coverage. For example, getting mentioned on ESPN.com as a golf manager does not make one notable. But being the subject of an ESPN article (or at least a few paragraphs) would go a long way towards establishing notability. Getting signed to a record label and providing vocals for a song on a tribute album does not make one notable. But getting your album reviewed in Rolling Stone would go a long way towards establishing notability. Appearing on Oprah does not make one inherently notable. Receiving detailed (i.e., more than a couple sentences) coverage of the appearance(s) in a reputable publication would be a helpful start. Again, these are just examples. I'll be happy to reconsider if additional information is presented.  Gong show 01:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gongshow - I appreciate your input. Again, I think any reasonable person would argue that 4 appearances on Oprah, a documentary on Golf Channel, 200,000 views, airplay on MTV, 50,000+ social media followers, etc would definitely qualify one as notable. 50,000 strangers decided to follow his every word, but 5 editors on Wikipedia think it's not? Doesn't make sense. The guy is notable. Maybe I hang out with the wrong crowd, but nobody I know has been on Oprah once let alone 4 times, or ever had any kind of documentary they were in on national tv, or airplay on MTV (or VH-1, etc). I'm not arguing with you (in particular) but arguing your argument (if that makes sense lol). I would continue to argue Music #1, as he's had multiple works released nationally and overseas that are documented. One can search his name on iTunes, Amazon, etc and find the releases. Creative #1, he fits the very definition of widely cited by peers, right from their mouths. I guess I'm just a bit confused, as before we even started this article, we went to the Wiki Live Help Chat Room to see if this was something we should pursue. The editors there had us write it in the sandbox, which we did, and helped us edit / add sources, remove certain things, before we published it. There were 4 editors there who helped us through the process. We wouldn't have wasted our time if it was just going to be deleted. And it would make more sense if any of the editors in the Live Chat had said along the way, this may be an issue of notability. FeerTheDeer (talk) 07:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi FeerTheDeer. I understand your points, and would kindly suggest that for Wiki's puroposes, achieving notability is not so much about going out and doing things, but having others notice/discuss those things in detail. That's why I'm more interested in what people have to say (in detail, not 140 characters or less) about the Oprah appearances than the appearances themselves, or who's talking about the subject's appearance in a documentary (in detail, not just a sentence or two) more than the appearance itself, or who (independent of/unrelated to the subject) has remarked on the person's musical works, not merely that such works exist. As for social media, many Beliebers have YouTube subscribers and Twitter followers in the six figures - there's a distinction between them and someone with a "notable" large fan base, and it has to do with in-depth coverage (see my WP:ENT bullet point above). Hope this helps clarify the types of material I'm looking for.  Gong show 17:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Major record label artist. Meets WP:MUSIC. AuthorAuthor (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK Gongshow, WikiDan & Taylor, I will do what you've asked and come up with the specific links in the next few days. Again, I know you guys aren't here just to destroy our work, but to make Wiki better :) Thanks for your assistance. Be back soon.FeerTheDeer (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Also, sorry for telling the others who worked on it to come here. I didn't realize that was frowned upon. Still newbies :-/ FeerTheDeer (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -I'm sorry but I do not feel this person is notable to have an article about. I'm confused about his album titled One. I'm assuming it never got released? If that is the case,then he has never released an album of his own work? Also the refs are poor. Number 18 about his work with Madonna goes to a outdated Geocities blog that looks broken. Ref or link number 28 goes to a site called Bandcamp that looks like a fan site or blog that people donate money to.--BeckiGreen (talk) 00:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have been unable to find the kind of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources necessary to establish notability by Wikipedia's standards. Taylor Trescott, WikiDani61, GongShow and Becki Green have also made the effort without results. All this talk about Google hits, Twitter followers, YouTube videos, social networking and TV talk show appearances, none of which establish notability, simply show that those who wrote this promotional article simply don't understand what notability means on Wikipedia. Particularly weak is the claim that he is notable for passing mentions that he manages a non-notable professional golfer, who has played in exactly one major tournament, winning a prize of exactly $0.00. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 - The non-notable professional golfer you mention, was a cast member of a reality show on a major network (Golf Channel) and played in the U.S Open. A simple search of his name on Google revealed tons of coverage. He was also part of the documentary with McMahon. So it seems your judgement on notable may not be so trustworthy. Further, you mention notable as per Wikipedia standards, which McMahon clearly meets. 4 appearances on the Oprah show, broadcast through most of the world, a record deal with a major label (which by wikipedia standards, automatically makes him eligible), an internationally (& domestically) released Tina Turner album, and airplay on MTV all count towards his eligibility. FeerTheDeer (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - McMahon is with a major record label which automatically makes him eligible via WP:MUSIC Four nationally broadcast episodes of Oprah's Lifeclass on a major US, Canada & UK cable channel, and AirPlay on MTV also constitute eligibility. His extensive work with other Wikipedia subjects also makes him eligible, as well as his Tina Turner release which is available around the world online and in stores. The traffic driven to the subjects page also shows that there is enough interest to keep the article up. 400 page views in 3 days. AxeStaticProcess (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the increase in page views might be related to this discussion?Wkharrisjr (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I did some wikifying of the article, as others have too, plus removed the "social networking fame" section and deleted some POV verbiage -- a bit easier to see the forest through the trees now, altho the article still needs work. AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - An article is justified when it meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. In the case of McMahon, the relevant inclusion guidelines would be general notabiliyt which applies to all subjects, and biograghies of musicians which is topic specific. In the case of general notability, we lack the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to satisfy the guideline. With respect to the musician specific criteria, I don't see that any of the criteria are truly met. One might argue that appearance with Oprah may satisfy criterion 12 but for me, appearing on a talk show is not being the featured subject. There have also been arguments that "McMahon is with a major record label which automatically makes him eligible via WP:MUSIC" which I interpret to assert that criterion 5 has been met; however that criterion specifies 2 album releases from the major label, and not simply being signed to a label so that criterion is not met either. -- Whpq (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But Whpq, he is automatically qualified because of #11 - has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or network. Also, he didn't just appear on a talk show. He was a guest on 4 constitutive Oprah shows, live tweeted those shows with her and writes for OWN section off Huffington Post for the show. AuthorAuthor - thank you, for wikifying the article. It does sound less POV now. The Live Chat editors also were debating about the Social Media section, but told us to leave it in and it could always be taken out later. FeerTheDeer (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything user Whpq posted above and have the same question he posted above. Also it does not matter if he meets #11 if he is failing to meet the other criteria under WP Music. Also a lot of the ref's are not reliable. The whole Kyle and Madonna section in the article fails as ref # 17 is a blind gossip bit on a Google alt.gossip.celebrities group. Ref #7 goes to IAC music,and the paragraph about Kyle there has so may grammatical errors and no sources for anything,it reads like it was written by a fan. Can anyone give me an answer about his album titled One? It reads in the article like it was never released,if that is the case, he has never realeased an album of his own,correct? Music wise,he has sung on one song on a compilation album. What song of Kyle's,if any have charted? Can anyone provide proof that is NOT from a blog,like proof from a Billboard chart? BeckiGreen (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BeckiGreen, he meets #11. There are no conditions with this. Nowhere does it state you have to meet this one, but only if that one. He meets #11, he's eligible. In RE: song being played nationally, the video has received MTV airplay and is still listed on their On Demand page.

You can buy the Tina Turner song here on iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/artist/rose-reiter/id17315487 Also available on Spotify: https://play.spotify.com/artist/7ipe9nOumUW6uDkOA5VVId FeerTheDeer (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply - wow, this is really stretching notability to nano levels of thinness. No specifics were actually answered so I am going to try to interpret the above answer as best I can on my query about criterion 11. Firstly, nobody in the above discussion has actually stated which song was placed on rotation nationally. Based on all the "Tina Turner" mentioned, I'm assuming that the song in question is "I Don't Wanna Fight". I'm assuming that the particular version that is in question is not the Tina Turner recording in 1993 when McMahon would have been about 6 years old, but is the Rose Reiter recording of it. However, he is not the primary artist for this recording (contributing vocals), but more importantly, there is no evidence of it being placed on rotation nationally. Being on iTunes, or being listed on the MTV site is not proof.-- Whpq (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should point out that nowhere does it say that McMahon's video has received MTV airplay. Anybody can create an MTV artist page (just try searching for any random name, and it'll probably have a page) and add songs/videos to it. A reliable source is needed to prove the video has been aired. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 18:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since FeerTheDeer, did not answer my question about the album titled One, I'm going to guess it was never released,since thats what I think from reading the Kyle McMahon page. And as for the argument of- He meets #11. There are no conditions with this. Yes there are. And the condition is this-Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. I don't see where Kyle McMahon has been placed in rotation by a major radio or music television network. I have tried to Google, What's Love? A Tribute to Tina Turner, and I cannot find anything about it charting. I tried Billboard, I tried various terms and wording on Google for What's Love? A Tribute to Tina Turner, and all I can find are sites where the cd is for sale and that's it. Where is the proof or source that Kyle has been placed in rotation by a major radio or music televesion network? because I cant seem to find one. Having a song that Kyle Mcmahon sung backing vocals on iTunes and Spotify, I don't think is proof of being a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network. And ref #10, his ASCAP writer credits,leads me to the ASCAP page, where I fill in his name and hit the search button. This does not work when I tried it. I tried his name on the ASCAP page,and checked each tab at the the ASCAP page,writers, performers,publishers etc and when I hit the search button, nothing happens. Maybe the ASCAP page does not work on an iPad? FeerTheDeer, can you provide a source for #11-Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network? --BeckiGreen (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2013 (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/Kyle_McMahon&oldid=1137977617"