Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Billups

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Oliviateacher (talk | contribs) at 12:42, 7 August 2009 (→‎Andy Billups). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Andy Billups

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]
    • '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)[reply]
    • You "can't be arsed to create an account", but your typographical exuberance is oddly reminiscent of this IP (see this), aka Yiwentang. Care to comment? If you're not Yiwentang, I can assure you that creating (being arsed to create? arsing to create?) an account is very easy indeed. -- Hoary (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[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 memebers. Also WP:Vthe reference in its mother article is unverifiable due to the magazine being "no longer published"
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andy_Billups&oldid=306591388"