Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Betan
- 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Peter Betan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be a long-running autobiography created and maintained for years by Peter Betan himself or someone closely related. Several claims lack sources, and the only legitimate independent coverage appearing in the article are two publications local to Miami, where the subject lives. The name-dropping of opening acts is reminiscent of the example given in WP:GARAGE. There is no indication that the subject meets any of the criteria in WP:MUSICBIO.
This article is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Help desk#Help needed to authenticate further the artist / musician/ composer/ guitarist "Peter Betan" article. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:MUSICBIO. Theroadislong (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- Umm, those two links are the same. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- Yes I meant to add WP:GNG not WP:musicbio!. Theroadislong (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - If the article is deleted, please also delete the redirect Betan, Peter and consider whether Betan should be unlinked or removed from the Music of Miami article. GoingBatty (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- @GoingBatty: An admin deleting an article generally looks at "what links here" and cleans up anything that needs cleaning up. Not always (I've been known to forget to do this), but generally that's the process. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - fails WP:NMUSIC and the article has far too many unsourced/weakly-sourced claims to be allowed to continue in its present state. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 00:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Clearly a self-promotional article. He has a few brief mentions in local Miami media, though the sources used in the article for his supposed achievements are dead or off-topic. Opening for someone famous at a one-off show is not notable because touring acts routinely invite someone local to open so they can save on travel costs. Otherwise this musician is only visible in self-created music directories and streaming sites, with none of the significant coverage that is necessary here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Should have been done twelve years ago. Better late than never. -Arch dude (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete I am unable to find independent, in depth coverage to establish musical or general notability. Star Mississippi 17:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- This is Betinfo the contributor(s) of the Article mentioned: "Peter Betan" Yes, there is a COI in the article. The contributor and the subject of the article are one of the same. In good faith, this article which has been in Wikipedia for 12 years has merit. Admittedly so, it has been somewhat neglected over the years. Links, citations, verifiable sources die and it is up to the contributors and editors to replace the dead links with new active ones to maintain a current, factual and cohesive status for the reader of the articles. The contributor / subject of the article is not well versed in using the tools that wikipedia edit pages provide to authenticate a fact or credential to the subject. We apologize for not using the tools correctly which now the ramifications of being poorly versed with the documentation / verification tools have surfaced into possible deletion and accusations of being non-factual, or fabricated information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betinfo (talk • contribs) 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- We are pretty sure the "Peter Betan" article will be deleted, but please let me assure that the article was never motivated by self promotion. The subject of the article has had plenty of promotion, press releases, local TV / Radio appearances, performances in all venues and notoriety on the web for decades, and has been a professional original artist / performer for over 30 years noted by his web presence and artistic cultural contributions to the area where he resides, performs and records. Some of the many opening act credentials that the subject of the article has were not mentioned because there was no obtainable web based verification for them, but the concert openings mentioned in the article are verifiable ( we assumed linking a mentioning of the concert openers in a popular news publication would suffice) The article "Peter Betan" was never intended to be a vehicle of self promotion or for inducement to selling music product or anything else related to self promotion. It was intended for providing knowledge, career and historical information coupled with verifiable credentials and music catalog information strictly pertaining to the subject of the article. The subject of the article already has had decades of regional notable notoriety as an independent original artist before the article was created. Web links and citations go dead over the years and some of the factual information in these articles loose their verification. The article "Peter Betan" was created with the utmost objectivity and not motivated by self promotion and absolutely nothing is fabricated. When an artist is rich and famous Wikipedia will have no problem accepting articles about these respective artists, and that is all well, good and agreed. With all due respect,I believe Wikipedia could use some improvement in the category of articles pertaining to independent artists. There are many who are true creative professionals and who merit articles about them and have contributed artistically to our culture, we just never hear about them or looked over. Wikipedia is a web based encyclopedia and should never be a selective one. We don't believe it is. If Wikipedia decides to delete the article "Peter Betan" we will accept the decision ad bare no ill will. The contributor(s) and subject of the article want to thank Wikipedia for providing this article to interested readers for 12 years. Lastly and again, We apologize with regard the COI and we vehemently state that the article "Peter Betan" was NOT created for the purpose of self promotion, but for solely providing knowledge, historical, career information coupled with the subjects published music catalog, achievements and credentials. Sincerely and with much thanks - Betinfo (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
was NOT created for the purpose of... promotion, but for solely providing knowledge, historical, career information coupled with the subjects published music catalog, achievements and credentials
is oxymoronic on its face and what most promoters say when they're told their article's promotional. My bigger concern is the unsourced claims. You're damned lucky this didn't mutate into another Seigenthaler. We require these sources for a reason, and those claims existing is a disservice to him, Wikipedia readers, his fans, and us editors who're forced to either bring the article into compliance or delete it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Can't find any significant secondary coverage, the sources in the article are mostly dead links which doesn't help. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
WP:BLUDGEON by now-blocked COI editor collapsed for readability |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Delete, WP:SNOW. Peter, you had a good run here, posting and tending to your autobiography for 12 years, before I came across it the other day. English Wikipedia now has over 6 million articles, many of which fly under the radar, sometimes for a long time; that this article was never previously challenged doesn't necessarily mean the community accepted it, but rather, that nobody gave it much scrutiny. For the closing administrator, you're welcome to conclude whether Mr. Betan is the sole editor for his account. I can't make heads or tails of it [1]. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
WP:BLUDGEON by now blocked COI-author collapsed for readability |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The article "Peter Betan" has merit. It is NOT an autobiography. It is an article providing historical/ career information coupled with music discography, achievements and credentials of the subject. It did NOT "Fly under the radar" it was simply an article providing information on a true life original artist who has notoriety, influence to regional culture and has been working as an independent performing artist for over 30 years. The article "Peter Betan" is not slanderous, offensive, inciteful, fabricated, exaggerated or full of falsehoods. When you say "I cant make heads or tails of it" the readers can, and have for 12 years. The article has had and continues to have major visibility on the internet. When the subject of the article is searched or researched on the internet (just like wikipedia is) it reaches the many who want to know information on a certain subject, person or artist. The article is simply an article of historical information about a musical artist coupled with music catalog, and credentials all factual and executed with the utmost objectivity which should have been properly sourced (which the contributor (same as the subject of the article) did not do well at all) We have declared and presently again, that the article has COI's The first is that the contributor is the same as the subject of the article (one person) which I profusely apologize again about. The second COI lays with the neglect of maintenance of the article and the incorrect handling of the tools that wikipedia provides for sourcing claims and attaching them to the statements and historical facts pertaining to the subject in the article. All these issues happened due to improper usage of the research and sourcing tools wikipedia provides, not for the purpose of fabrication of falsehoods of the subject or to fool the readers. The article "Peter Betan" has merit and was created with the utmost ethical objectivity in mind. Again, apologies regarding the issues and conflicts that have occurred. Thank you— Preceding unsigned comment added by Betinfo (talk • contribs) 23:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
|
- Delete, A self promotional article, fails WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 07:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
WP:BLUDGEON by now-blocked COI editor |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Comment - I already voted above, but found another item of interest. My colleagues above have already shot down the denials of promotion and conflicts of interest. Mr. Betan (or his representative) has also said "The article has had and continues to have major visibility on the internet" and variations of the same several times. No it hasn't. See WP's page view stats: [2].
From 2015 (the earliest data available) to 2018 the average daily page views were zero.Data for this article before 2018 may be missing. There was a flurry of action in April 2018 related to some concerns from the Reviewing/Patrolling team. Between then and last week, the article averaged about two views per day. None of this is directly relevant to a deletion discussion, but Mr. Betan has made an exaggerated claim about viewership and used it as a reason to keep the article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
WP:BLUDGEON by now-blocked COI editor |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Delete: Hardly any coverage in reliable sources, all I can find are passing mentions and even those are sparse. Throast (talk | contribs) 14:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete — Per rationale by doomsdayer520 and nom. Furthermore shouldn’t this have been snow deleted by now, no? Celestina007 (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Administrative note User:Betinfo has been blocked indefinitely for a variety of reasons including their behavior on this page. Users are reminded to remain civil in discussions. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 02:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. (Wow this page was an interesting read...) – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 03:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- 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.