Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oliver McGill
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. A significant number of anonymous votes were discounted as probable sockpuppets. Rossami (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oliver McGill[edit]
Not noteworthy. 589 google hits and hardly any seem to be about the person in this article. Should have any factual, non POV, encyclopedic information added to The Cat Empire--Silversmith 16:17, 4 May 2005 (UTC)}}[reply]
i have just read the current Oliver McGill log and completely agree with the writer's opinion. The log is informative and humourous too. When reading the article it was clear to me that the writer is passionate and learned about McGill (not in a perverse way) and music in general.i was disappointed to discover that the log may be deleted as it will probably be replaced by some musically unknowlegdeable prude who has just copied and pasted an article from the net. It will be a great shame if this log is deleted and replaced with mediocrity.it must stay! 60.230.99.205 5 May 2005
KEEP - the log IS factual and informative, it tells you about him, his roots and the reasons why hes seen as being so awesome. There isn't any reason to delete this log - User:220.237.134.5 didn't sign.--Silversmith 12:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I sincerely hope that these insightful and informative articles will be KEPT. I myself have learnt a lot upon reading the material and those who encourage its deletion speak nonsense, flummery and are obviously agitated by some sort of annoying rash. Thus, we must ignore these fiends and hope to see more material that contains even a fraction of the depth and wisdom that underlies these articles. - User:218.215.132.54 didn't sign.--Silversmith 12:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the above 3 users only contributions are to this vote. --Silversmith 13:00, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am the author of this article and I have a few things to say: Firstly, 'Ollie McGill' returns 516,000 sites on Google, and the first 10 all refer to the musician. Secondly, the claim that he is not noteworthy is surprising, given that as a musician in Melbourne and Australia he is quite well known. We are talking here about a musician whose work and solos appear on the Australian charts - the latest Cat Empire album hit No. 1 here. On top of this, his style is quite unique, and though this area is shakily subjective, he is noteworthy on a purely musical level. Thirdly, he requires his own article as there is more room for discussion around specifically his music. Fourthly, I am in the middle of editing the page, and it would seem like the critics would do better to help me than ask for deletion. Fifthly, If Silversmith has a problem with people contributing only to causes they feel are worth contributing to, I'd like to know why. - User:144.132.112.125 11:21, 5 May 2005 (EST)
- As for fifthly, it's because of what are called "sockpuppets" - individuals who post multiple anonymous votes in an attempt to skew the process, or who register multiple accounts for the same purpose. This is not a secret ballot, it's a public debate. I'm not claiming that you are fraudulently trying to sway the results here, but you are using methods which have been appropriated by those who are. Got it? DS 11:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Noooo, not 516,000 hits — 122 hits for "Ollie McGill" [1] This is because your search looked for the individual words Ollie and McGill. 122 hits is quite abysmal. Ok, sure on the seach he comes up at the top, but so do I when I seach for my name. I'm numbers 2 and 3 with 41 hits. Oh I'm so FAMOUS!!! You are more than welcome to write as much about the individual band memebers as you would like under the article [The Cat Empire] which could do with the bulking out. Just try to remain neutural in your comments.--Silversmith 11:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
dear all, the article is a stout piece of cheese which would stand up against the finest camembert you might care to through at it mrs./mr. silversmith. i sense that there may be a touch of jaloux-fromagerie as the french put it. i think it is a good article, which is not only writte with flare but also has mature aroma. in addition to the article itself, one ought to keep in my mind that the author has cancer. fond regards, me. User:212.143.120.243 Didn't sign. Sig. added by --Silversmith 18:51, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The author having/not having cancer is completely irrelevent. May I remind you that you are perfectly welcome to add all the information you would like on Ollie, but just under the Cat Empire article instead. Not a big deal is it? I'm sure he's fabulous, and when I'm back in Melbourne next year I'll be sure to go and see him. And if you bothered to look at my user page you would know that I'm a female. merci beaucoup, à bientôt. --Silversmith 18:51, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dare I say that this discussion is getting a little ... catty? - User:144.132.112.125 19:45, 9 May 2005 (EST)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.