Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Arnold

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 Redirect to Stephen Arnold Music, Nakon 01:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Arnold

Biography, no independent sources, written like an ad, questionable notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite: It looks like copyvio now, but rather notable TV stations in the US use Stephen Arnold theme music. And yes, I'm back. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 22:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But Stephen Arnold Music already exists, and the additional biographical information in Stephen Arnold is totally unsourced. Delete if not rewritten completely. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to Rewrite

RE: Sources – The article is sourced to multiple trade articles (Mulitchannel News, Post and SCREEN Magazine) written about Mr. Arnold, supporting the info about what he does for a living AND at the same time, what makes him notable. What else in the article do you need sourced?
RE: Birth date/age/nationality – How is this really relevant? This info would not make the page any more interesting. He’s just a middle-aged Caucasian male and it does state that he is from Indiana in the copy.
RE: Written like an advert – Its not. There is nothing in there that is an opinion nor that sways your opinion. It’s pretty cut and dry. Look at other pages and compare. I see MANY bio pages with no sources and that are poorly written. Just because it was written by a professional, and not someone off the street, the language should not be dumbed down.
RE: Stephen Arnold Music does exist as a page. However this is the company of Stephen Arnold and not about the man himself e.g., Donald Trump Organization is different to Donald Trump the man (and yes, both these seperate pages exist).No need to delete. Regards, Timesrunningout (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources - most of the citations are about the company, not the person. Besides, the online sources have the character of press releases or "business listings" (not independent, critical reporting), for example none of them seems to mention competitors, and all the information seems to come from the company itself, so they fail Wikipedia:COMPANY#Primary_criterion. And you have cited online sources in a misleading way (the source doesn't say that Arnold has a well-established reputation for delivering the successful sounds that ... "stick in a viewer's brain like chewing gum", it merely quotes Mr. Arnold saying that they try to create such sounds). Which makes one wonder if the offline sources are quoted accurately.
RE: Birth date/age/nationality - the exact birth date might not be essential, but an article about a person which doesn't even indicate from what part of the world he comes from and from what generation (is he 25 or 85?) is lacking fundamental information. In contrast, the humorous personal trivia in the (completely unsourced) "Personal Life" section are not relevant to the reader of an encyclopedia. This again raises the question why there should be a separate article besides Stephen Arnold Music.
advert - as Mr. Arnold's publicist[1], you are quite obviously more familiar with the writing style of marketing texts than with the neutral, factual tone expected in an encyclopedia. To just quote one example from your text:

Dedicated to providing the highest quality music productions, easy and efficient access to syndicated production music libraries and superior customer service, Arnold has a well-established reputation for delivering the successful sounds that make a difference

This is full of what is called peacock terms in Wikipedia. "successful" does mean what precisely? "Dedicated" is a typical advertising term (what does it really mean? that the goal of providing the product is more important to the company than making money?). "Superior" is an opinion that competitors might not agree with, so it violates WP:NPOV. Writing for and about your employer, you should really have read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

Look at other pages and compare - Wikipedia is always a work in progress and there are certainly other articles which have quality issues and should be deleted. You are welcome to help out by pointing out some of them. But this is not a valid argument to justify violations of Wikipedia policies, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if I am allowed to do this, so revert if I am not, but I think this needs to be relisted for more discussion since only 2 have commented.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Finalnight (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stephen Arnold Music. What the company does is certainly notable, and its article could usefully be expanded (though preferably not by its own PR); but Mr Arnold's notability is what his company does, and this article has major problems:

conflict of interest - the author is Mr Arnold's publicist;
promotional tone and peacock terms: "Dedicated to providing quality... easy and efficient access... superior customer service... well-established reputation for delivering the successful sounds that make a difference" - none of those words backed up by the reference cited for them;
The sources quoted are mostly about the company and what it does, not for the personal part of the article, which as HaeB notes is oddly incomplete and trivia-like.

In short, I agree 100% with HaeB's remarks above, but I think the solution is to redirect to the company article, so that anyone searching the name will find that. JohnCD (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.