Talk:Alex Day

---

A First Response to the Editor's Objections

I've made several changes to the article in response to the posted objections.

• I deleted most of the external links, keeping only two of them. I think that this problem has now been fixed.
  
• I tried to smooth out the timeline to make it more balanced between recent and remote events. But frankly, we are writing about a 21-year-old here, and most of what he's accomplished could be considered recent. So that could be part of the problem. I think I could possibly add some historical perspective to the section about Trock music. But that risks creating an article within the article - although, a separate article about the Trock scene might not be such a bad thing.
  
• As for the notability issue, I'm having a hard time getting a clear idea of what has to be shown in the article. I think Alex Day's claim to notability is based on his leading role in the Trock movement, his invention of the very term for that genre, his release of several albums and his appearances on several television shows - as well as his YouTube popularity. I wouldn't overstress his YouTube work, because even without it, I think he would merit at least a small Wikipedia entry. I think the article contains ample citations supporting his notability. For that purpose, at this time, these twelve could be considered the strongest:
  

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7217479.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/oct/06/youtube.youngpeople
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/3358177/Can-your-camcorder-make-you-rich.html
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article6914409.ece
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-5519
http://www.wired.com/underwire/2009/06/trock-gaining-traction-with-time-lord-fans/
http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2008/08/time-lord-rock/
http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/s7/doctorwho/tubetalk/a158350/introducing-trock-songs-about-doctor-who.html
http://www.digitalspy.com/music/singlesreviews/a186401/chartjackers-ive-got-nothing.html
http://www.thelondonpaper.com/going-out/whats-new/put-your-money-where-your-youtube-video-is
http://www.theyorker.co.uk/news/uninews/3739
http://www.thisisbath.co.uk/news/winnersarticle-579579-details/article.html

Wmoran9550 (talk) 08:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

---

A word of explanation has become necessary here. For some reason, some wonderful Wikipedia admin came along and started fixing problems in this article, especially in the footnotes. He's making them look like real footnotes, instead of mere hyperlinks. I'm studying the changes, and learning a lot from them. But this means that the footnotes no longer look like those I've listed in the section above and in the Notability Matrix below - even though they do link to the same sources.
And to Paul A: Thanks, mate.

Wmoran9550 (talk) 06:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

---

A Factor to Consider

When deciding whether a person merits a separate Wikipedia article, it might be useful to ask whether readers would expect to find an article here about this person.
Or maybe the better question is this: Would readers be surprised not to find an article about this person on Wikipedia?
I suppose this is why every American Idol contestant seems to have a Wikipedia article - and there are no objections to the notability of these people, even when their published notices are pretty thin. Take a look at Aaron_Kelly_(singer), for example. Of course, people expect to find an article about him on Wikipedia, and I think there should be an article on him. But if we take Aaron Kelly as the standard of notability, then I think Alex Day is notable enough.
I came to Wikipedia looking for information about Alex Day, but I found no article. That surprised me so much that I decided to open a Wikipedia account (something I'd been meaning to do anyway) and write an article about him myself. Alex Day is a well-known personality, with hundreds of thousands of fans, and I'm sure many or most of them have come to Wikipedia looking for an article about him.
This is not a factor that should be used to waive the notability guidelines. But it is one of the questions that could be asked to help decide whether a person is notable. If thousands of people come here expecting to find an article about someone, that in itself is some indication that this person is notable in some way.
I think it would be a mistake to remove an article that thousands of people expect to find here. Along those lines, I wonder if we could determine how many people actually have come to Wikipedia looking for an article about Alex Day. Could we find out how many searches there have been for terms like "Alex Day" or "nerimon" ?

Wmoran9550 (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Wmoran9550 (talk) 05:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Is Alex Day Notable ?

I designed this table to help me perform a "notability check" on Alex Day. In addition, it may contribute something to the discussion.
According to Wikipedia guidelines, notability can be established by satisfying just one of the listed criteria.
For someone to satisfy all these criteria might be considered immodest. ;>

---

Notability Matrix

Subject	Wikipedia Criteria	What This Article Asserts	Sources
Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities	Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.	Alex Day has appeared on two popular BBC television shows, and appears regularly in significant roles on YouTube channels with wide viewership	http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/singlesreviews/a186401/chartjackers-ive-got-nothing.html http://www.thelondonpaper.com/going-out/whats-new/put-your-money-where-your-youtube-video-is http://www.theyorker.co.uk/news/uninews/3739
Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities	Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.	Alex Day has a large YouTube viewership and subscriber base, and also has a following in the Trock music scene.	http://www.thelondonpaper.com/going-out/whats-new/put-your-money-where-your-youtube-video-is
Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities	Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.	Alex day has been prolific on YouTube and made unique contributions such as his invention of the popular video vlog tag game and his readings of the Twilight novel.	http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7217479.stm http://www.chrisbookarama.com/2009/12/friday-bookish-buzz-ho-ho-ho.html http://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/bdu0c/ http://www.buzzfeed.com/benf4/alex-nerimon-reads-twilight-16e2 http://youtubeoftheday.com/post/453202918/17march http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/nerimon
Musicians and ensembles	Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.	As a solo artist, as a member of Chameleon Circuit, as a member of ChartJackers, and as a member of Youstage, Alex Day has been the subject of numerous stories by independent and reliable sources.	http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article6914409.ece http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2008/08/time-lord-rock http://www.wired.com/underwire/2009/06/trock-gaining-traction-with-time-lord-fans http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/s7/doctorwho/tubetalk/a158350/introducing-trock-songs-about-doctor-who.html http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/singlesreviews/a186401/chartjackers-ive-got-nothing.html http://www.thelondonpaper.com/going-out/whats-new/put-your-money-where-your-youtube-video-is http://www.theyorker.co.uk/news/uninews/3739
Musicians and ensembles	Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city	Alex Day is probably the most prominent representative of Trock music.	http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2008/08/time-lord-rock/ http://www.wired.com/underwire/2009/06/trock-gaining-traction-with-time-lord-fans/ http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/s7/doctorwho/tubetalk/a158350/introducing-trock-songs-about-doctor-who.html http://www.thelondonpaper.com/going-out/whats-new/put-your-money-where-your-youtube-video-is
Musicians and ensembles	Has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network	Alex Day has appeared on two different BBC television series, in many episodes over periods of weeks and months.	http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/singlesreviews/a186401/chartjackers-ive-got-nothing.html http://www.theyorker.co.uk/news/uninews/3739
Musicians and ensembles	Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.	Alex Day was a member of the ChartJackers group, whose single "I've Got Nothing" reached #36 on the UK singles chart.	http://www.theyorker.co.uk/news/uninews/3739
Composers and performers outside mass media traditions	Is cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre	Alex Day is cited by numerous sources as being influential in the Trock music genre	http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2008/08/time-lord-rock/ http://www.wired.com/underwire/2009/06/trock-gaining-traction-with-time-lord-fans/ http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/s7/doctorwho/tubetalk/a158350/introducing-trock-songs-about-doctor-who.html http://www.thelondonpaper.com/going-out/whats-new/put-your-money-where-your-youtube-video-is
Composers and performers outside mass media traditions	Has established a tradition or school in a particular genre	Alex Day established the Trock musical genre and coined the very term "Trock"	http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2008/08/time-lord-rock/ http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/s7/doctorwho/tubetalk/a158350/introducing-trock-songs-about-doctor-who.html
Composers and performers outside mass media traditions	Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture	Alex Day has frequently been covered in publications devoted to the Trock music scene	http://www.wired.com/underwire/2009/06/trock-gaining-traction-with-time-lord-fans/ http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2008/08/time-lord-rock/ http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/s7/doctorwho/tubetalk/a158350/introducing-trock-songs-about-doctor-who.html http://www.thelondonpaper.com/going-out/whats-new/put-your-money-where-your-youtube-video-is
Web specific content	The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.	Alex Day's YouTube content has been the subject of many such published works	http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7217479.stm http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/oct/06/youtube.youngpeople http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/3358177/Can-your-camcorder-make-you-rich.html http://www.thelondonpaper.com/going-out/whats-new/put-your-money-where-your-youtube-video-is

Wmoran9550 (talk) 07:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

My info

i see that most of the stuff that i had added has been removed, becuase some of the links i used were 'dead'. i guess thats fair enuogh, but ive just checked out a wikipdeia page on the subject, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Linkrot) and it says: "Do not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer". and the infromation that i added is 100% factual , that's exacrtly what happened. i'd saved the links to alex's YT videos in my history, which is how i new them. dunno why he deleted them, youll have to ask him that. but hell tell you taht what i put was right. and i was just trying to add some trock info "to keep recent events in historical perspective", like it sais at the top of the page. and i think it makes more sense to mention how trock managed to get mentoined in issue 401 of DWM - atm, it just says that trock was mentioned in the letters page, but it doesnt say how it managhed to get there 92.0.127.9 (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't remove that info because it was false. I removed it because, without proper citations, there's no way to know whether it's true or false. You'll notice that I left the one assertion that seemed to be properly supported. I doubt there will be any real problem understanding how a letter to the editor got published. As you said, letters were published because letters were sent, which is the usual way that sort of thing happens. Also, I think it's generally understood that musicians and other performers promote themselves and their careers, in various ways. I'm not sure it's really necessary to state that in the article, or document it. It more or less goes without saying, doesn't it? On the other hand, if some musician or performer had achieved some success without promoting themselves, that actually might be worth mentioning in an article. Bottom line: I was just trying to keep this article up to Wikipedia standards, which generally require assertions to be documented with proper citations. And by the way, I ran this past a very well-established and respected Wikipedia editor, immediately. He agreed that the deletions were absolutely proper. Hope the weather's good in Glasgow. Wmoran9550 (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The Rule Concerning Articles About Living Persons

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should not be inserted and if present, must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to the subject of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmoran9550 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing Multiple Issues tags from article

This article has been tagged for multiple issues since day 2 of its existence. Three specific objections were raised. First, "Its external links may not comply with Wikipedia's content policies or guidelines." That issue was resolved immediately by removing most of the external links. Second, "It may be slanted towards recent events. Please edit this page to keep recent events in historical perspective." Much information has been added to the article since then, and the style and the structure of the writing has been improved to diminish the recentism-feel it had. Third, "The notability of this article's subject is in question." The issue of notability has been addressed in great length and detail on this discussion page, and there have been NO contributions to this discussion which have made ANY argument that the subject does not meet Wikipedia notability standards. The discussion has gone on for more than a month now. There seems to be a consensus that this subject is notable enough to merit an article.

Since all objections have been resolved, I shall proceed forthwith to remove the tags.

Wmoran9550 (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

TARDIS Photo Caption

The original caption for the photo was "Stepping out of the Tardis".

The edited caption is "Standing in the doorway of a Doctor Who TARDIS".

The reason given for this edit is: "Changed caption on TARDIS photo. It was a bit silly."

I have three objections to this edit:

First, the original caption was mildly humorous, but not "silly".

Second, it is not obvious to me how the new, edited caption is any less "silly" than the original caption.

Third, the new caption is redundant. The concept of a Tardis includes the concept of Doctor Who. There is no other kind of Tardis.

This edit should not have been made without a discussion. Unless it is justified in this discussion, I'm going to undo it.

Wmoran9550 (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It is my understanding that Wikipedia pages aren't supposed to be humorous, they are supposed to be informative. The new caption is not silly. It tells you exactly what is happening in the picture. I put the Doctor Who part in because some may not be well-versed in the show. I admit that that phrase could be removed. Also, the old caption was lying, for he wasn't stepping out of the TARDIS but standing in its doorway. The new caption isn't perfect but I believe it is better than the old one. I hope this answers your concerns. Half Price (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Your change still calls it a TARDIS, when of course, it is not a TARDIS. It is an old London police box. There's no such thing as a TARDIS. A TARDIS is a fictional entity. And so, as far as I can tell, your new caption is just as humorous, or "silly" as the old caption - except that it's longer. Also, the original caption wasn't "lying" - a pretty strong accusation, don't you think? - when it said that he was stepping out of the Tardis. He could have been stepping out of it, and stopped to have this photo taken - to mark the occasion. Or he could have been about to step into it. Or he could be just standing there - which is your interpretation. I don't think it's so clear, or so important, that it required changing the caption. Of course Wikipedia articles are not primarily humor pieces, but that doesn't mean they have to be humorless, especially when we're talking about the caption to a photo which itself is meant to be a bit humorous. I'm not saying your new caption has ruined the article. I just think it's better to discuss such changes before making them, unless we're talking about defamation or vandalism. It's more polite to discuss such style changes first, and it fits in better with the Wikipedia spirit of consensus. Contrast this with the change you made today, where you updated the fiveawesomeguys channel statistics. That was straight-forward and practically automatic. It was an excellent improvement to the article, and it required no discussion here. In any case, I would like to at least shorten the new caption by removing the Doctor Who part from it. We can leave your change from "stepping out" to "standing in front". If some reader doesn't know what a TARDIS is, notice that TARDIS is linked to the Wikipedia article that will explain what it is. What do you think? Would you have a problem with that?

Wmoran9550 (talk) 01:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, feel free. I apologise for thinking that it was not really that important a detail to discuss first. With things like that if anyone does take exception it can be discussed, but I didn't expect it to be contentious. Half Price (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, that makes sense. You make a good point, actually. I usually resist the temptation to make purely stylistic changes to articles, since they tend to turn into edit wars or interminable arguments with lots of hurt feelings. But it's perfectly true. If someone doesn't like your change, they can always bring it up for discussion. This Wikipedia system is a trip sometimes, isn't it? Take care.

Wmoran9550 (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The WP system has its failings, and it can sometimes suffer from way too much bureaucracy. But hey, it's good on the whole! Take care yourself. Half Price (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sons of Admirals Section

All very good and it needed to be added, but I can't help but think the bit about the song being available on iTunes and viewable on Youtube would come across as a bit of an advertisement. I reckon the YT video could be added to the external links, but I think a link to the iTunes page doesn't agree with the WP impartiality standard. Thanks. Half Price (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone else changed it so no worries. Half Price (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

eddplant is Ed Blann

In case someone else is tempted to change it, Ed Blann is the actual name of eddplant. The article lists the actual names of the members of Sons of Admirals, and not their YouTube names. Ed Blann is not a mistake. It is the correct name. Please do not change it to eddplant. It begins to seem like vandalism.

Wmoran9550 (talk) 07:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again, some anonymous IP from the U.K. did a drive-by edit and changed the name Ed Blann to Eddplant - without discussing the change, and probably without even looking at this discussion page. This is an encyclopedia, not a personal website. The mere fact that someone prefers their internet alias does not mean that this article should be censored to conceal what is documented and known to be his actual name. All the other members of Sons Of Admirals are identified by their actual names, and no good reason has been offered by anyone to make an exception for Ed Blann, aka "eddplant". Kindly stop removing his actual name from this article - or if you think his actual name should be concealed, at least raise the issue for discussion on this page first. This sort of edit by anonymous IP addresses with little or no other history of edits strongly suggests vandalism - and there is a Wikipedia procedure for blocking known vandals.

Wmoran9550 (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully my edit will change things. Half Price (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your edit to Sons Of Admirals. I lifted your hidden note and put it in this article too. I hope that will help. Thanks. Wmoran9550 (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes I got my articles mixed up. I think it will do the trick. Thanks. Half Price (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm hoping that the edit I made a few minutes ago will be acceptable to all. Let's not change it again without first discussing it here. Please. Wmoran9550 (talk) 00:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

a modest proposal

I've been informed, and I've verified, that the citation used as the source for Eddplant's actual name no longer contains that information. This can be fixed. There are other sources we can cite. The question is whether we want to keep that information in this article at all, considering that Eddplant is mentioned only once, in passing, and is not the actual subject of the article. If we do want to keep the real-name information in the article, I am proposing that we update the citation, and then move his actual name out of the main text of the article, and into the footnote itself. Without objection, I would like to do this today or tomorrow, and then move on. It seems to me these are the options:

1. Should we leave it as is, with maybe an updated source?
2. Should we delete the real name from the article completely?
3. Should we move the real name out of the text and into the footnote?

Your thoughts?

Wmoran9550 (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, it is a hard one. If you want a footnote then I'd go for Option 3 too. --Half Price (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Bueno, since no objections were noted, I went ahead and incorporated the real name info in the footnote, while also updating that footnote itself, since the previous source had been changed to remove the relevant information. I also made a number of purely formal edits to the article and one substantive edit concerning the release date of "Here Comes My Baby", which according to the iTunes site was May 31, 2010, rather than the date we had in the article. I removed some internal Wiki links from the lead paragraph, all of which are repeated in the main body of the article, in order to clean it up and make it read more smoothly. Hope everyone's ok with these edits. Wmoran9550 (talk) 04:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just checked WebCite, and there is a recent archive of Ed Blann's last.fm profile before he removed his surname that could probably be used as a reference as follows: "eddplant's Music Profile". Last.fm. June 26, 2010. Archived from the original on June 26, 2010. Retrieved July 6, 2010.

That said, this is still clearly quite a thorny issue. For one, Edd would clearly prefer that he was referred to by his stage name. In all other articles that mention performers who go under stage names (e.g. Snoop Dogg, Eminem, Andre 3000, etc.), their stage names are how they are referred to. But then, of course, that's because they're notable enough to have Wikipedia biographies, so, if somebody really wanted to learn their legal name, they have somewhere that they could check. The same is not true for Eddplant.

I'm still not totally convinced that it's entirely appropriate to mention his surname in the article; is it encyclopedic and does it increase the reader's understanding of Alex Day to give Edd's full name? Then again, the footnote option seems like a good compromise, so I'm happy to leave it like that. Anyway, those are just my thoughts. Vobedd731 (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Chartjackers section

A couple of days ago I added to the article another example of the Chartjackers project being mentioned by the mainstream media. My concern is that this sentence is now looking rather long and a little unwieldy. It currently reads as follows:

It was also reviewed, with varying degrees of approval, by The Times, Yahoo! Music's James Masterton, BBC Radio 1's Chart Blog, Tower Review, Mashable, Digital Spy, Popjustice and Drowned in Sound.

I propose that we reduce the number of sources that are cited to a maximum of about four, and keep the ones that are most notable. The Drowned in Sound one definitely needs to go, as it's apparently not very well sourced (apologies, I think it was me who added that one), and the Digital Spy review is cited earlier in the paragraph, so I don't think there's any need to mention it again. Tower Review and Mashable are probably the least notable of the remaining sources, so I suggest rewriting the sentence as follows:

It was also reviewed, with varying degrees of approval, by various media outlets, including The Times, Yahoo! Music's James Masterton, BBC Radio 1's Chart Blog, and Popjustice.

Your thoughts? Vobedd731 (talk) 06:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, looks good to me --Half Price (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Great, I've now made those changes. Thanks very much! Vobedd731 (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

References to object of the article

Alex Day has, on two occasions, disclosed that he dislikes referring to professionals by their last names (www.alexdaymusic.com/blog). Should we change all the "Day" references to "Alex" for his and some o his followers' personal satisfaction, or just stick to the rules of the website and not take into account any dislikes quirks of mannerisms of the subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.118.8 (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

What's changed?

Articles on this subject have been deleted four times before (1, 2, 3, 4), most recently just weeks ago. What has changed since then to make this person notable? Lagrange613 (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Never mind, just saw the deletion review. Lagrange613 (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Alex deserves an article. He just doesn't have enough of that great stuff which catapulted his friend Charlie into YouTube superstardom. He isn't as beneficial or as technically innovative as Charlie, either; his blogs are shorter, simpler and less well-known. Eternities (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

First DW inspired rock music?

It says: "TARDIR were the first band to perform Doctor Who-inspired music" But what about The Time Lords' song, Doctoring the Tardis? I think that can be categorized as rock music. 80.98.146.68 (talk) 07:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)