Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Borrtex (2nd nomination)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Praxidicae (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- 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. Consensus looks pretty solid here. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Borrtex (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)
non-notable composer. despite the ample amount of sources in this article, most are not independent, completely unreliable or outright fake, making the article largely fabricated. Also as a note, not only has this been deleted via AFD previously, it's also been deleted by other means under the name Daniel Bordovský. See source review:
Source review (nominator)
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}. | ||||
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - Nomination of this page for deletion seems to be overly exaggerated. Everyone who has a basic knowledge of today's modern classical music knows that Borrtex isn't necessarily one of the main leading artists of this genre, but has definitely contributed significantly in the last few years by his work. User Praxidicae seems to be expressing his own subjective opinions about these sources and the artist, who by the way falls under the WP:MUSICBIO - 10) Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film... = Music featured on US Interior, Emmy award winning film, major licensing placements in international brands' commercials etc... plus also WP:COMPOSER 1) Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. = His song (We Are Saved) having over 1.7M of streams on Spotify (not too common in today's classical music), getting featured on Apple's contemporary classical music playlists - which are precisely curted by their music editos and curators, having tracks on YouTube reaching over 1M views etc... Praxidicae is mentioning the irrelevance of the subject in certain reference sources, but lacks to notice that the artist himself made an original music for the project that is referenced by the source - it's a key element to prove that his work was used in major projects in order to fall into WP:COMPOSER mentioned earlier - so how can that be irrelevant????? ... Praxidicae talking about grammar and spelling errors... --> Just made a bunch by putting the source assess table together, LOL... Overall: Taking a quick look at someone else's page in a quite narrow-topic music area, and baselessly trashing all the sources without doing a little bit more detailed research seems to me like an inconsiderate and completely unnecessary action. But hey, Wikipedia is free to be edited by everyone, so if more people suggest page deletion, then let's go and delete the page...... MusicHyper (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Please point out what I've exaggerated, MusicHyper. Having 1 million views on youtube is neither notable nor impressive. Praxidicae (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- And really, you wanna tell me this is a legitimate source? Did you look at their contact or about us page? The images are stock images and personal images of individuals who are not the supposed writers (I'll refrain from linking their actual profiles as they're low profile individuals.) It's a scam site. Praxidicae (talk) 22:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, really? So, you think that having 1M views on a classical / soundtrack album itself is quite a standard these days? It's not a Hip Hop what we're talking about here... Come on, don't be subjectively narrow-minded. MusicHyper (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, yes the one site you linked here doesn't really convince me by its authenticity, but still - having stock images doesn't really make the site fake - does it? ... MusicHyper (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- It's not only stock images, there are photos of real people who are not the people being represented and it is Black hat SEO in an attempt to falsify their clients importance. That aside, they're not reliable sites. You've not answered my question about what you think I've exaggerated. Praxidicae (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Actually, I did partially answer your question about what you've exaggerated in my first reply. You clearly didn't look into the subject considering other important details already mentioned above. But okay, I will do the research for you and write down the specific places that I think you might have misunderstood. 1) Ostravan.CZ - One of the most significant online news websites about culture in the Moravian-Silesian Region, Czech Republic - a place, where Borrtex was born. As you previously falsely stated: "per the notice at hte bottom, they're contributor pieces and anyone can edit" it's not true at all. They do have editorial staff who is in charge, see here. The staff is professionally educated as they are also part of the academy nominating the Jantar Awards. 2) The Frisky Not really too sure about what you see is wrong with the interview. Your explanation of reliability doesn't really make much sense to be honest: "not really sure an interview in the frisky which has a contact me of someones personal gmail is reliable" - what does that even mean? The Frisky is quite a popular online magazine which even has it's own Wikipedia page.... 3) Radio CZ references to a company CSFD.cz whose founder Martin Pomothy is a friend of Borrtex. The source is listed to confirm that the statement given in the artist page's text about //the largest film website in Czech Republic// is based on truthful facts. If you want, I can find even other sources online confirming this information. Given that Borrtex worked for this company in younger age, I personally consider this source as relevant and important. 4) Focus Age You state that there is "no mention of the subject". Again, false. Have you even try to read / translate that article? It describes a Warner Brothers documentary project of company CSFD.cz and Borrtex - Daniel Bordovsky, who at that time, was a full-time film maker. It's an important piece of information, as during the time spent in Hollywood he shifted to producing music. 5) Exploring Movie Studios: Warner Bros. Studios Correct, yes basically Czech IMDb, but it's not irrelevant as it clearly confirms Borrtex's name in that cinematography position... It's just information backed-up by these reference sources confirming it, isn't it the way it's supposed to be? 6) Music News - You say "clearly a PR piece" based on what? How can you make such a statement without no proof or explanation? Subjectively decided by your own opinion... 7) Xiaomi Film on YouTube Here it gets more interesting. You say "just a brief appearance in a short". Really? It's a movie published by one of the most significant phone companies in the world Xiaomi and was viewed over 200k times. There is no "brief appearance", the music in this whole movie is made by Borrtex and is properly credited in the film credits. 8) US National Parks Project issued by the US Government: National Park Service to help protect the national parks is not a relevant reference source for this artist??? 9) Montblanc Again, a music placement for this international well-known luxury brand featuring one of the TOP hollywood actors Hugh Jackman, is not a point to reference as well?? It's all sources that combined, they try to prove the notability of this artist. On the other hand, it seems to me that you are looking for a full feature cover article on NY Times. It's just never going to happen with artists that make contemporary classical music, just like Borrtex does. 10) RouteNote Yes, it is a music distribution service, but they have been verified as a company and have a blog / news site, where they release articles on all different kinds of topics. The company position has nothing to do with the article itself. But okay, I admit that I do unserstand your perspective on this one, and it might not look super independent as it still is a company's site... 11) ClickOrlando, NSPA Winners, Today.com, Popsugar UK - You say that it's "reliable but has nothing to do with the subject" or that it's "irrelevant to the subject as theres no mention". Again, maybe if you made a better research and actually read the Wikipedia page before nominating it for deletion, you would know that this was the first major scoring project Borrtex worked on. These four reference sources are not meant to provide you a link to articles about Borrtex. They are meant to provide you the confirmation of the statements given on the artist's page about this specific movie which won the student Emmy award. Based on the sentence N.10 of WP:MUSICBIO "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film..." and sentence N.1 of WP:COMPOSER "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." it's necessary to provide the reference sources about those mentioned projects, in order to reliably determine if the project was actually of a bigger scale or not. So, it's hard for me to understand that you think these pieces of information are irrelevant. 12) Audio Media International Completely reliable source, a UK based printed magazine about audio technology and music. I don't see anything wrong in here. The contact for their editorial staff is right here. And finally 13) Forbes Your shouting, almost disrespectful sounding statement "no indication how a random forbes contributor came across this person" speaks for itself. An article about the business side of music production posted on one of the most reliable news sites, and yet you still manage to find some flaws. Bryan Collins, or how you say "random contributor" has been writing for Forbes for over 2 years now and published more than 160 relevant articles. Of course, he's a contributor, but he still needs to follow certain rules and regulations given by the Forbes editorial staff. I'm really surprised by your negative attitude in this matter, all it takes is to read more information before making conclusions... That's all I have to say. But to be 100% fair, I do agree with you about the authenticity of some other sources (especially SweetStartups and the EU Soundtrack Magazine). Borrtex's page definitely does need to be edited, and those sources must be removed, in order to fully comply with the Wikipedia guidelines. But I strongly disagree with the page deletion itself. But that's just my opinion. Thank you for your time. MusicHyper (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- It's not only stock images, there are photos of real people who are not the people being represented and it is Black hat SEO in an attempt to falsify their clients importance. That aside, they're not reliable sites. You've not answered my question about what you think I've exaggerated. Praxidicae (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom's thoroughly exhaustive source analysis. Keep !vote not substantiated in evidence. Doug Mehus T·C 02:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Doug Mehus Please consider reading also my response on his analysis. Thank you. MusicHyper (talk) 09:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Also, in reaction to Praxidicae's source analysis, here I'm providing my graphic interpretation of the sources, as he clearly didn't research the details:
Source review (page creator)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
That's all for my perspective of how I see these sources... As mentioned in my text response, I'm adding my awareness that to be 100% fair, I do agree with you about the authenticity of some other sources (especially SweetStartups and the EU Soundtrack Magazine). Borrtex's page definitely does need to be edited, and those not reliable sources must be removed, in order to fully comply with the Wikipedia guidelines. But I strongly disagree with the page deletion itself. But that's just my opinion. I hope my graphic analysis might get to readers here more objective point of view than what you have suggested. Thanks. MusicHyper (talk) 10:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Just made an edit on the page, removing the above mentioned nonreliable reference sources. MusicHyper (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Lack of independent, established sources. Also fails our notability criteria by a wide margin.--Darwinek (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Can I ask how do you think he doesn't meet the notability criteria? It seems to me that he clearly matches the required 10th point in WP:MUSICBIO - his original music for an Emmy winning movie (half a million views on YouTube, plus above mentioned three reliable and independent news sources), plus the 1st point of WP:COMPOSER - his single released in 2018, having over 1.7M streams on Spotify - definitely not too common in classical music. Just to point out, if we were to use similar criteria for other contemporary classical music composers who have a page here on Wikipedia, then we can go ahead and nominate for deletion also Ólafur Arnalds: half of the reference sources are interviews, which are not independent, based on the opinion of the nominator, plus some small blogs and record lable articles... only one or two bigger reliable media mentions. Also David Morneau and his old-looking made up blogs?? Wow, and Eric Lindsay referencing only to his Soundcloud profile and his own website page? Not even talking about composer Anton Rovner and his three sources that are not even available online? I could go on forever.... We should definitely nominate those pages for deletion too. I'm just trying to explain that guys from this genre won't get the kind of news placements you're looking for. Ever. It's impossible. But that doesn't mean that they are not good or notable enough in their field of work. MusicHyper (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- It would be appreciated if some editor or user who has a basic knowledge in classical / soundtrack music, could take a look at this. MusicHyper (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Can I ask how do you think he doesn't meet the notability criteria? It seems to me that he clearly matches the required 10th point in WP:MUSICBIO - his original music for an Emmy winning movie (half a million views on YouTube, plus above mentioned three reliable and independent news sources), plus the 1st point of WP:COMPOSER - his single released in 2018, having over 1.7M streams on Spotify - definitely not too common in classical music. Just to point out, if we were to use similar criteria for other contemporary classical music composers who have a page here on Wikipedia, then we can go ahead and nominate for deletion also Ólafur Arnalds: half of the reference sources are interviews, which are not independent, based on the opinion of the nominator, plus some small blogs and record lable articles... only one or two bigger reliable media mentions. Also David Morneau and his old-looking made up blogs?? Wow, and Eric Lindsay referencing only to his Soundcloud profile and his own website page? Not even talking about composer Anton Rovner and his three sources that are not even available online? I could go on forever.... We should definitely nominate those pages for deletion too. I'm just trying to explain that guys from this genre won't get the kind of news placements you're looking for. Ever. It's impossible. But that doesn't mean that they are not good or notable enough in their field of work. MusicHyper (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per Praxidicae's source analysis. Sources included in the article are of too low of a quality to establish GNG.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete I am not seeing any newspaper articles on this composer even the ones on the movie talk mainly about the movie itself and not his music. Countrychick56 (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- It was mentioned several times. [1], [2], [3], [4] ;-) MusicHyper (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. Didn't know he has a composer! PK650 (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Though I think this article has many flaws like Prax mentioned, I think we should give this article a third and final chance, but on some conditions, there needs to be more sources from a REPUTABLE publisher (e.g NY times, Times, etc.), also like Prax had mentioned this article needs pictures that are not copyrighted (like some of the not copyrighted images from Getty images), or if you have your own images (taken by you) of Borrtex, you can use them, BUT you need proof that you actually own them, if these standards are not met this article may get deleted (not by me, because I am an IP editor). You should also feel free to check out WP's guidelines on sources, copyright, etc. I should also mention that you should ask some editors at the WP teahouse to give you some advice on fixing this article. 96.230.240.122 (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2020 (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.