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 keep. Consensus is the subject appears to be notable. I will revert per consensus. Further discussion on improving the article can continue editorially. Star Mississippi 14:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Everything (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete WP:COI with no references to support any of the claims made in the article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Quebec. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know how I can add references. This is all accurate information coming from the original source, me.

I copied my edits based on another musicians and they had no references on their discography so I thought it was ok.

Also let me know how many references I need to put for my article to be valid. Thanks. Fredeverything (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fred, the lack of references, which need to be reliable third party sources, isn't the only problem - there's also the fact that this is extremely promotional in tone. Wikipedia isn't a place to post promotional material, it's an encyclopedia and needs to be written from a neutral point of view. This is why you shouldn't write articles about yourself. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 00:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. I found someone to help out. This was my bio posted. It wasn't intended to be a promotional tool, I just wanted to make sure things were more accurate/up to date and I didn't take the time to learn more about the nature of the site. I apologize. In case of Discography, how can someone reference that to be accurate? Is there a way to stop the deletion process to make it easier for us to edit in a proper manner? Thanks for your time. Fredeverything (talk) 09:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there is a prior version in the page history which has been overwritten with the COI version. The references are now mostly broken though. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 00:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Apparently there is a single RS reference from 20 years ago in the San Jose Mercury News, but the link is broken to verify if is third party. But there needs to be more than a single source to establish notability. I'm leaning delete, but want to give this guy a fair chance to present more examples of third party recognition. I'm also bothered by the promotional tone of the updated edits. ShelbyMarion (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  From a quick google search I found these two and suspect there are more out there. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 00:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. As I mentioned, I didn't do enough research before I did my edits. I'm not the one who started the page and I just wanted it be more accurate. I will comply and send the proper reference. Thanks. Fredeverything (talk) 09:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I just made a test with a reference in the first line. Let me know If that's ok. If so, I can get someone to rewrite the article with the proper references and also making this more neutral. Let me know if this works. Thanks Fredeverything (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Oh Boy. This looks like a copyvio from his SoundCloud page as well. I find one review/interview with NPR [1]. Bunch of minor mentions in the Montreal Gazette, not sure notability has been met. Oaktree b (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You can type in : Deep House Producers in Google and my photo appears as third so I don't think it's a question of notability here. I can appreciate that you didn't find any press links but I would be happy to correct that. Thanks Fredeverything (talk) 09:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Revert to a version from 2021 and clean up that one - The article has existed since 2007, and until recently it was a fairly respectable stub article thanks to some reviews Mr. Everything has received (e.g. [2]), and some useful info at AllMusic ([3]). In March 2022, Mr. Everything himself appeared with the goal of adding updates, but despite good faith intentions, turned the article into a giant reproduction of his own promotional and social media sites. That's not what Wikipedia is for and you're not allowed to write about yourself. The late 2021 version of the article might be salvageable if it is cleaned up, because Mr. Everything does have some coverage from more reliable sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi, I've taken note of what everyone has said and acknowledged my wrong doings and ignorance as far as how the site works. Now I'm trying to clean up what I did and add references. I have someone who will help me with this but I need a bit of time. Hopefully by next week it could be a decent page again. Also, it would be very difficult for anyone else but me to come up with the exact discography.Discogs isn't even up to date with it. Fredeverything (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  How about if we take the last acceptable article, before I pasted my bio BUT we keep the Box with the newer photo (I can reference the photographer) and the additional things in there like Aliases, etc... + My updated discography. Could that work? I just want to make things right and according to the site's policies as well as having an up to date article. Let me know. Thanks! Fredeverything (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Revert: There does seem to be enough coverage for our good friend Mr. Blais here to at least establish baseline notability. The fact that it has been disturbed with some puffery and COI does not change that. A very basic Google search brings up some mentions in Billboard, a review in MusicRadar [4], the San Jose Mercury News, NPR [5], Forbes [6], a review in HX Magazine [7], Mixmag [8], and from my small parsing, I believe there are even more sources that can prove notability. Revert the article, fix up the sources, and then if it still isn't believed to meet the notability requirements, start another AfD. Why? I Ask (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an entry in DJ Mag [9] and in Decoded [10] Why? I Ask (talk) 12:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your help. I really appreciate it. It seems by trying to improve something, I made a big mistake! 96.22.164.27 (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 10:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Revert - I'm sure Fred Everything is not being smacked but just didn't know how Wikipedia works. Don't feel that you should stop trying. Sometimes it's easy to think that one may have a vested interest in an article but it was in good faith. Revert to the original and if there are changes that are properly cited with reliable sources then have at it. Pmedema (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2022 (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.