Jump to content

Talk:Clayton Counts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:ColoringBook)

Article

[edit]

this does not comprise an article and does not meet Wikipedia rules for notability

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by April Winchell (talk • contribs).

(This was originally posted by Kurt Benbenek, who is a troll. He used April Winchell's name, but is not her. Kurt had his own Wikipedia entry deleted for lack of notability, and has since been posting as people in the outsider music community, such as Otis Fodder, Irwin Chusid, and Clayton Counts on the WFMU message boards, as well as many talk pages on Wikipedia. He has also attacked several Wikipedia pages in the past.)
The initial deletion proposal was made from a fake account, by someone who dislikes Mr. Counts. It meets the Wikipedia standards for notability insofar as Mr. Counts has been mentioned in Rolling Stone, American Songwriter Magazine, the Boston Herald, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Chicago Reader, Lumpen Times, the Onion, E! Online, the Austin Chronicle, Entertainment Weekly, and USA Today. I will get references up and expand the article.
TrevorPearce

I suggest you include these mentions, with reasonable quotes (i.e. not too long) and referenced. See Anna Svidersky and Mark Bellinghaus for examples. Tyrenius 16:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD debate result was keep. TrevorPearce 10:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • However, he's only notable for The Beachles at the moment, so there's a good case to be made for a merger I think... --kingboyk 17:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That case wasn't made sufficiently during the AFD debate. A redirect was mentioned as an alternative to keeping the article, but the result was keep. If you want to re-propose it, be my guest. The result will be the same. There are plenty of references to Counts in the media. This makes him notable. See Wikipedia's notability guidelines for confirmation. People who are notable deserve to be profiled, regardless of how many things they are notable for. If we merged the two articles, then we'd have to include biographical information about Counts on the Beachles page. More than a couple of DJs who are notable for only one record have their own pages. So what if you think that's all he's notable for. He is notable, in accordance with WP:MUSIC. And contrary to your position, there are at least two mentions of him in the press prior to the Beachles record. One in the Austin Chronicle, and another in the Chicago Reader. TrevorPearce 05:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added the link to the Reader article. I see also that Counts is listed under FringeWare Review, another notable entry. TrevorPearce 05:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just did propose it. Here. No need to get hot under the collar, it's just a suggestion... (What happened in the AFD debate is irrelevant. That decided against deletion. Merging is an editorial decision.) --kingboyk 13:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't irrelevant at all. The article was proposed for a merger just last week. Check the AFD debate. I'm not hot under the collar, but like a few others you just seem antsy to get rid of the article. No offense to you, even if that is the case. But like I said, there are references that predate the Beachles record. Merging it will mean that someone else will have to rewrite this article from scratch eventually. TrevorPearce 19:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another thing is: this article is about someone who is notable for making a record (even a single record), while the article you are proposing to merge it with is about the record he made. If we're going to talk about merging, there are several artists who only released one record before their deaths. Should we merge their articles with those of the records they released? Counts is more likely to release another record than a dead person. To merge the article would be silly and inaccurate. He isn't the record. He made the record, though, and he is notable. Again, look at WP:MUSIC. TrevorPearce 19:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No references have been provided regarding recent death. It should be removed. Absenter (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is in violation the Wikipedia BLP Policy on Reliable Sources (Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article). Absenter (talk) 09:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • His death has been reported on his official website. For all intents and purposes it WAS published by the subject of the article. Whether it is true or not, it is relevant. You are attempting to control the content of this article based on your own assumptions. You are not contributing to the integrity of Wikipedia by omitting known information (i.e., that an announcement of his death was made on his website, or that it is not known whether the announcement is true). If you have evidence that Clayton Counts was the given name of a real person, submit it. Otherwise, we can just as easily assume that his death is unverified because Clayton Counts wasn't his real name. If you continue to make revisions based on your speculations about the veracity of this claim made on HIS website, you will be reported.TrevorPearce (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wikipedia reference for reliable sources is pretty clear on this - a personal website is not a reliable source. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources Absenter (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we were making a claim that Clayton Counts was dead, a reliable source would be required. We're not saying that. We are stating that his website CLAIMS that he is dead, which is indisputable and relevant to the article and its subject. Whether he is really dead or not, the fact that there is notice given on his website is enough to merit a reference to the post. Plenty of rumors are covered in Wikipedia, but they have to be identified as unverified rumors, as this one is. If you feel so strongly about this, let's get a dialog going with an arbitrator.TrevorPearce (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree with that interpretation - and clearly a rumor of death does not merit it's own section. That section also seems to call into question of whether or not Clayton Counts is his legal name. This should be cited as well - as this is the first mention of such a notion. One would assume that Clayton Counts is a legal name (especially when associated with birth / death) biographical information. No reference articles indicate that it may not be his legal name. Such discrepancies should be brought to the attention of an arbitrator. Absenter (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't create the section, first of all. Secondly, I mentioned that Clayton Counts might not be his real name, because there was contention over whether or not he was really dead. That would certainly explain why his death hadn't been verified. Whether you accept the interpretation or not, it is just an interpretation, no better or worse than your own. If this was a malicious rumor perpetrated by another website or blog, your point would be airtight. It seems to me that you are pushing the agenda that Clayton Counts is not really dead, which may or may not be malicious. Clayton had a lot of enemies, and I don't know you well enough to say for sure. Whether it is true or not, I feel strongly that it should be mentioned, as many press releases on other artists' own websites are. As long as we are not claiming that Clayton is dead, there is no need for a reliable source. There are tons of examples of this kind of sourcing all over Wikipedia, but I'm sure there is little precedent for exactly this kind of claim.TrevorPearce (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, since you mentioned it, some rumors of death have not only received their own sections, but their own ARTICLES, even after the rumors have been debunked. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_is_deadTrevorPearce (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the hall of records in Austin, Texas, there is no record of a Clayton Counts being born on August 19, 1973, anywhere in the state. I double checked with the county clerk's office in Midland, Texas (where Clayton was supposed to have been born) and they had no record, either. I am awaiting word from one hospital, but so far it looks as if Clayton Counts never really existed.TrevorPearce (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trevor - thanks for all your hard work. This would seem to further call into question all biographical information contained in this article (name/dob/dod) - perhaps an email to the maintainers of his official website would provide the necessary biographical information to complete this article. As it stands now, I would question whether the information in this article is up to Wikipedia standards. Absenter (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to agree, but since the subject of the article has been deemed noteworthy it should be altered, not deleted. If we merge the article with The Beachles, we would be foregoing all biographical information. One thing we ARE sure of is that someone calling himself Clayton Counts created the Beachles record, that he was mentioned by that name in several mainstream news sources, and that he maintained (or continues to maintain) a popular music blog. There are many Wikpedia entries dealing with noms de plume, assumed identities, and unidentified or anyonymous individuals. I will continue with the research.TrevorPearce (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the people I spoke to in Midland, Texas, there was a James Clayton Counts born on August 19, 1973, the same location and date mentioned on Clayton's website and elsewhere.TrevorPearce (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it somewhat confusing that TrevorPearce is struggling to find any evidence of Mr Counts death. Especially considering that 99 percent of his contributions over the past two years have been updating Mr Counts wikipedia page and that of Mr Counts various projects. Having previously displayed an encyclopedic knowledge of Mr Counts achievements and mentions in the press, it seems somewhat bizarre to me that he is now resorting to links from blogs and message boards in an attempt to further this whole charade. It's about time you came clean Mr Pearce, your editing history on Wikipedia points to the kind of attention to detail that one would only have for themselves and their creations.Lvfifteen (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am so busted. Um, no. I met Clayton twice in the 1990s. I used to see him perform in Austin, way back when. I used to run into him at the FringeWare store. Whatever you think, Clayton was enigmatic and fun to listen to. Now, take a look at Absenter's editing history and tell me what's he's been doing with 99% of his Wikipedia time. Look at YOUR OWN editing history while you're at it. The fact is, I only joined Wikipedia to look after Clayton's entries because jerks like you and the rest of Get Your Bootleg On were doing everything they could to discredit him and have his entries removed, in spite of the fact that he made one of the most talked about records of 2006. You are truly spiteful people. If Clayton is faking his death, he's doing a good job of it. I spoke with two of his friends via email yesterday and they sent me some pictures of a memorial, complete with lots of people in suits, several framed pictures and a painting of Clayton, flowers, and an urn. You just can't accept that Clayton was well liked, or that anyone would know anything more about him than you do, which is very sad.TrevorPearce (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I saw your post to GYBO regarding your own infatuation with Clayton, and all the research you'd done into his death. How hard is it to Google "Clayton Counts"? That's all I've been doing. If an obsessed little hater like you can't find evidence of his death, I doubt my luck would be much better.TrevorPearce (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused again. Have all you been doing is using google or have you been speaking to his friends? I'm afraid I wasn't able to magic up any photos of a memorial, probably because I wasn't looking for any due to the fact that the message on his blog clearly states there wasn't going to be one. Perhaps now that you are in touch with these people you can now provide some hard proof? Anything will do, one sentance in a colorado newspaper, anything? Please don't confuse my desire to settle this matter for hate. I simply require this matter be brought to a satisfactory conclusion before you waste anymore time of the people who actually update wikipedia for the benefit of us all. Lvfifteen (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We all know you're just trying to make sure that Wikipedia doesn't go to pot over a single article about a guy you've insulted many times, as recently as a couple of days ago. I used Google, and at Absenter's suggestion I contacted the people maintaining his blog. Not that I should have to explain anything to you. I know it must be a bitter pill to swallow that no one cares so much about updating YOUR Wikipedia article. Oh, wait... you don't HAVE one. Now that we have established Clayton's real name, it should be no trouble for you to find out whether Clayton is dead or not. You've already done so much to put this issue to rest, what's a little more work? FYI, the message on his blog clearly states that there was not going to be a PUBLIC memorial. I assume the affair was private, but it's not my job to prove anything to you - and you're simply not honest enough to make any demands.TrevorPearce (talk) 09:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand my intentions completely sir. It just fills my heart with sorrow that somebody who made 'one of the most talked about records of 2006' could shuffle off this mortal coil only one year later and yet nobody outside of the blogsphere thinks this news warrants anything other than a passing mention. I would remind you that I have not altered any pages, nor have I called anyone a jerk. You have been most eager to quote wiki rules and policies in the past when dealing with other people and yet now it seems like 'someone I spoke to' and 'a photo I have of people in suits' is good enough for you to continue to try to control the content of this article. Regardless, you have told me all I needed to know in your responses to me, so thank you for that and I hope you and Absenter manage to resolve this issue in a timely manner. Incidently, one of the blogs you have linked to cited Mr Counts death as being from suicide, will you be confiriming this too, updating the article as required and linking it to the appropriate categories? Lvfifteen (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing, Columbo style if I may. Your barb about me not having a wikipedia page for someone to update really did hurt me a great deal. However without it, I might not have gone back to your (TrevorPearce) page and noticed that it has remained unchanged for over a year, containing the single line 'Trevor Pearce is a 26 year old musician and graphic artist. He lives in Boulder, but calls Ontario home'. Such attention to detail on updating Mr Count's entry and yet so lax on your own? No birthdate, no tags, no categories and you've not even seen fit to update your own age? Fake account. Fake death. Checkmate. Lvfifteen (talk) 12:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems more like Kolchak to me. Give me your phone number or your email address and I'll prove to you that we're two different people. Really, you should get a life and stop acting like a jealous twerp. Thanks for alerting me to the errors in my user page. Since you pointed out that I only created this account to update Clayton's entries, your latest revelation isn't so devastating. You did not answer my accusation that this has nothing to do with maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia, but is another in your long history of sad attempts to make Clayton look bad. You are a liar, and you are transparent. Anyone can register for an account at Get Your Bootleg On and see for themselves that LV15 is an obsessed enemy of Clayton's who is extremely vocal about his pride in having called Mr. Counts a "c*nt," among other things not including "jerk." Maybe it has something to do with the fact that you're not as well known, and maybe not. Not for me to say. It has always been my position that, even if Clayton faked it, there should be mention of a death notice being given on his website. I have tried to discover the truth, but so far I haven't gotten anywhere. I agree that a memorial could be faked, but if he really is dead, don't you think he would want for people like you to question it?TrevorPearce (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Clayton Counts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clayton Counts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clayton_Counts&oldid=1206807997"